IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 22 of 2008() -------------------- OS.55/2001 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 6TH DEFENDANT ---------------------- SRI.SAYED MOHAMMED, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS ------------------ 1. C.A.JOSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.LATE EASOW ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT CHEKKATT HOUSE, THADIYOOR P.O., THELLIYOOR MURI, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (DEAD). 2. LISSY BABU, POST BOX NO.20366, UAE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.G.MATHEW, THEODICAL HOUSE, VELLIYARA MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE. 3. ALEX.C.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, CHEKKATTU HOUSE, THELLIYOOR MURI, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABRAHAM C.JOSEPH, CHEKKATTU HOUSE, THELLIYOOR MURI, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE. 4. ABRAHAM.C.JOSEPH, CHEKKATTU HOUSE, THELLIYOOR MURI, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE. 5. SHERIN MARY JOSEPH, CHEKKATTU HOUSE, THELLIYOOR MURI, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE. 6. DAIZY STEVENSON, P.O.BOX NO. 4864, DUBAI, UAE. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R7,8 SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) FOR R.2,3,4,5, SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R.2,3,4,5, SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R.2,3,4,5 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R7 & R8 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.22 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th June, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is the sixth defendant in O.S.No.55 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Judge, Thiruvalla. First respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was instituted for realisation of Rs.1,29,250/= as damages. Petitioner in the written statement disputed the maintainability of the suit relying on Sections 128 and 158 of the Customs Act. Under order dated 14.7.2006, learned Sub Judge found that suit is maintainable, rejecting the objection taken by the petitioner under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act. It is challenged in this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent were heard. 3. Section 155 (1) of the Customs Act reads as follows:- CRP.No.22/2008 2 “155. Protection of action taken under the Act – (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done, or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations.” 4. Under the said section, a suit will not lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done or intend to be done in good faith in pursuance of the Customs Act or the Rules or Regulations framed thereunder. True, Sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Customs Act protects the Central Government, as well as any officer of the Central Government for any act done in pursuance of the Act, or the rules or the regulations, provided, the act done was in good faith. In the plaint, it was alleged that the act done was malafide. The question whether the act done was bonafide or malafide could be decided only on the evidence to be recorded. In such circumstances, without evidence, it cannot be held that suit will not lie, as the act is bonafide. Therefore, suit cannot be dismissed as not maintainable, as sought for. The question whether the act was bonafide or not is to be CRP.No.22/2008 3 decided by the court on the evidence to be recorded. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.