Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of three appeals bearing RSA Nos. 1939, 2235 and 2236 of 2013 as the issue involved in all these appeals is common. The plaintiff -appellant filed suit for recovery of Rs. 25 lacs as damages/compensation alleging that he is well respected and well to' do citizen of the country whose political and social image has been tarnished by the defendants by entering his name in the Surveillance Register No. X kept under Rule 23.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume -III, in Police Station Gidderbaha and vide letter dated 26.06.1997 addressed by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1, history sheet of the plaintiff was opened by informing defendant No. 1 about the registration of various cases against the plaintiff recommending that name of the plaintiff be put in Basta 'B' of Police Station Gidderbaha and defendant No. 1, without getting the matter inquired into, accepted the recommendation with mala fide intention by writing the words "Parvangi Ditti Jandi Hai" (English translation means "accepted"), without forming an opinion that the plaintiff was reasonably believed to be an habitual offender etc.
(2.) THE Trial Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiff entitled to recover damages in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - from each of the defendant (total amounting to Rs. 3 lacs) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till actual realization. All the three defendants filed their separate appeals challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Their appeals were allowed on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the previous Order 27 Rule 5 -A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which provides "where a suit is instituted against a public officer for damages or other relief in respect of any act alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity, the Government shall be joined as a party to the suit" and that notice under Section 80 CPC was not served before filing the suit. While allowing the appeals filed by the defendants, the lower Appellate Court made the following observations: - - "Furthermore, the plaintiff was required to serve a prior notice under Section 80 CPC upon the defendants prior to the institution of the suit. In the case in hand, neither the State of Punjab has been impleaded nor any notice under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the defendants. In such circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non -joinder of proper and necessary parties and reference can be made to a decision reported as 1992 Civil Court Cases page 400 (Karnataka) -N.C. Channabasappa v. Assistant Education Officer, wherein it has been laid down as following: - - "That Order 27 Rule 5 -A of Civil Procedure Code mandates that the Government be made a parry whenever an officer is sued for damages in the discharge of his duties or for any other relied is not in doubt, therefore, the lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit for non -joinder of proper and necessary party." Besides, in a decision reported as (2001) 1. J&K Law Reporter page 342 -M.M. Khajuria v. AB Rashid, it has been observed that the provisions of Order 27 Rule 5 -A CPC are mandatory provisions of law and not directory in nature. The word 'shall' has been used to implead Government as a party in the suit when the suit is filed against a public officer for damages or other relief in respect of any act alleged to have been done in official capacity. Further, in a decision reported as, (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases page 61 -Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner v. Ramesh Chandra Jha, it has been laid down that it was necessary to join the Union of India as a party in the suit in view of the provisions of Order 27 Rule 5 -A CPC. In the case in hand, the defendants are the public servants and they had acted in their official capacity. As such, the suit without impleading the State of Punjab has to be termed to be bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. Further -more, the notice under Section 80 CPC has not been served upon the defendants prior to the institution of the suit and in such circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on that score. Accordingly, the findings of the learned trial Court on issues No. 2, 4 and 5 are liable to be reversed and are recorded in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff"
(3.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed three separate appeals, referred to above, in which he has submitted that provisions of Order 27 Rule 5 -A CPC are not attracted because the defendants have not performed the duty in their official capacity while entering the name of the plaintiff in Surveillance Register No. X. It is submitted that it was a mala fide act on the part of the respondents to spoil the political and social image, of the plaintiff for which they are not entitled to any protection.;