HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 71 of 2000 Decided on: 15.06.2010 Vidya Sagar Sud. ………Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr.J.S. Guleria,Asstt.AG. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur, dated 18.2.2000, in Civil Suit Vidya Sagar Sud Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,07,200/- as damages suffered by the plaintiff due to harassment and mental torture caused to him by the defendants. 3. Briefly stated the allegations made by the plaintiff were that he is a permanent resident of village Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, for the last 20 years and had been permanently residing and working in ______________________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - District Kinnaur as a businessman since October, 1967.The plaintiff allegedly was running a business of food articles at Kalpa since October, 1967 to October, 1982 and he has now shifted his business to village Reckong Peo after 21.10.1982. The wife of the plaintiff namely Usha Rani has been working as a JBT Teacher in District Kinnaur since the year, 1982, who is presently posted as teacher in Government Primary School, Reckong Peo since the year, 1985.The plaintiff was to procure Inner Line Permit from year to year as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur, regularly since the year, 1967 and the last Inner Line Permit was extended to him upto 5.11.1985 by defendant No.3. The plaintiff applied for extension of his Inner Line Permit on 2.11.1985 to District Magistrate i.e. defendant No.2 but it was not considered by him and was forwarded to Sub Divisional Magistrate (defendant No.3) for action vide his letter dated 5.11.1985. Defendant No.3 has refused the extension of Inner Line Permit to the plaintiff vide office order dated 4.11.1986 on the ground that the application was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, for verification and report, and on the basis of said report the Inner Line Permit was refused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied to the District Magistrate, Kinnaur, as well as S.D.M. Kalpa, for extension of the Inner Line Permit. The plaintiff applied for copy of the report of Superintendent of Police, Kangra to defendants No. 2 and 3 but the same was not entertained by them. - 3 - 4. The District Magistrate, Kinnaur, in response to the application of the plaintiff dated 10.1.1986 replied to him that his letter dated 28.1.1986 does not fall under his jurisdiction and the matter be put up before SDM Kalpa. The contention of respondent No.2 that extension of Inner Line Permit does not fall under his jurisdiction was palpably false, incorrect and misleading since District Magistrate, Kinnaur, is merely an issuing authority of Inner Line Permit and SDM is only the delegate of defendant No.2 to issue Inner Line Permit. It was alleged that the District Magistrate, Kinnaur, had already issued Inner Line Permit to S/Sh. Dan Chand, Puna Ram, Subhash Chand and Kewal Kishan during the year, 1986, but had discriminated against the plaintiff with a view to harass and cause mental torture to him. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had been permanently residing and working in District Kinnaur, for the last more than 20 years and his wife is also working as JBT Teacher since 1980 and is posted at Reckong Peo since 1985. Therefore, as per Government instructions, the Government employees and their relatives are not required to take Inner Line Permit but the police authorities did not allow the plaintiff ingress or egress to District Kinnaur without obtaining Inner Line Permit. 5. The plaintiff further alleged that he was harassed by the action of the defendants and as such, a suit for recovery, on account of damages suffered by the - 4 - plaintiff as loss of business mental torture etc. has been claimed. The details of Rs. 4,07,200/- are as under:- (i) Journey expenses from Reckong Peo = Rs. 2500.00 and back on each and every hearing incurred. (ii) Loss oof business suffered = Rs. 3000.00 during the period 2.11.1985 to 16.9.1986. (iii)Litigation expenses = Rs. 1700.00 (iv) Mental torture = Rs. 4,07,200.00 Total Rs.4,07,200.00 6. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of above amount from the defendants. 7. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was not permanent resident of Reckong Peo village, though admitted the employment of his wife as a JBT Teacher for some years in District Kinnaur. It was further pleaded that in the application for extension of Inner Line Permit, the plaintiff had indicated his permanent home address of District Kangra. Defendant No.3 referred the application of the plaintiff to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra for report in the matter. In the meanwhile, defendant No.3 extended the Inner Line Permit of the plaintiff from 8.10.1985 to 5.11.1985. The Superintendent of Police, Kangra, vide report dated 26.10.1985, has not recommended extension of Inner Line Permit in favour of the plaintiff. It was also reported that the plaintiff was not residing in village Garli, Tehsil Dehra Gopipur, District Kangra for the last several years and does not possess any moveable or immovable property in village Garli. On receipt of the - 5 - report dated 26.10.1985 of the Superintendent of Police, defendant No.3 rejected the application for extension of Inner Line Permit in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, it was pleaded that the defendants are not liable for any damages. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Reckong Peo in District Kinnaur, as alleged? OPP 2. In case Issue No.1 is decided in the negative, whether the plaintiff was not required to procure Inner Line Permit because of the posting of his wife as JBT Teacher in District Kinnaur as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff was not required to procure Inner Line Permit pursuant to the provisions of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 even subsequent to the publication of the notification in the year, 1974 as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the defendants with-held the grant of Inner Line Permit with a malafide motive and pursuant to the alleged conspiracy in between the defendants inter-se to oust the plaintiff from District Kinnaur as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has suffered losses including special damages to the extent of Rs. 4,07,200/- during the period commencing from November, 1985 till September, 1986 as alleged? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount or any other amount from the defendants as alleged? OPP 7. Relief. - 6 - 9. The parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment decided issues No.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and issue No.2 was decided partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendants. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 11. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the plaintiff had filed the application for extension of Inner Line Permit vide his letter dated 2.11.1985 Ext. DW.1/H. It was submitted that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, Ext. DW.1/D dated 26.10.1985 shows that after making local enquiries, it was reported by the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, that the applicant does not possess any moveable or immoveable property in village Garli. Accordingly, it was reported that he was not a permanent resident of the area having no permanent home in District Kangra. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments that the plaintiff had copy of jamabandi to prove that he was having property in District Kangra. However, there is nothing on record to show that, while submitting the application for extension of Inner Line Permit, he alleged that he was having any property in District Kangra or attached any copy of jamabandi alongwith his application for extension of Inner Line Permit. - 7 - Therefore, no fault can be found in the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kangra. He has submitted his report on the basis of local enquiries made by him. In case the applicant was possessing any property moveable or immoveable, the details of immoveable or moveable property alongwith copies of jamabandi should have been attached alongwith the application. Therefore, it cannot be said that Superintendent of Police, Kangra, has intentionally made a wrong report. The documents in question have been duly considered by learned Trial Court. No infirmity could be pointed in the findings given on any of the issues by learned Trial Court. The fact that the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, submitted his report while performing his duties is not sufficient to hold that a wrong report was submitted by him and there is no proof on record that the report was palpably wrong or incorrect, which had caused mental tension to the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court has considered the documents on record and had given its findings accordingly after considering the evidence. 12. The plaintiff/appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC to prove on record certain documents which were allegedly attached with the case file, but had not been proved in evidence in accordance with law. A prayer has also been made on the ground that these documents should be considered by this Court since they were attached with the application. However, these documents cannot be looked into by the Court in absence of formal proof. The case has been - 8 - pending before the learned Trial Court for over 12 years and there was no justification for not proving the documents on record, and as such, there is no merit in the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for additional evidence to prove the documents mentioned in the list. Accordingly, application is dismissed. Learned Trial Court has considered the evidence and had come to a right conclusion that the plaintiff has not suffered any damages due to the act of the defendants and, therefore, the findings of the Trial Court cannot be termed as wrong. No infirmity could be pointed out in the judgment passed by learned Trial Court that any of the conclusions arrived at was wrong or incorrect and on what basis. As such, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. June 15, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (Purohit) Judge.