R.F.A. No. 1154 of 1982 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1154 of 1982 Date of decision: August 27,2008 R. N. Singal and others .. Appellants. v. Ram Narain deceased through his legal representatives. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. R. Gupta, Advocate for appellant No. 3. Mr. P. N. Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Defendant- Hari Chand Hooda (hereinafter referred to as `the appellant') is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned court below whereby in a suit filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as `the plaintiff') for damages, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- for loss of reputation and Rs. 5,000/- for worries and mental agony) have been awarded in his favour. Plaintiff- Ram Narain, was a former Member of the Punjab Civil Services; Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board and a Member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly. The facts leading to the filing of suit by the plaintiff are that on 21.6.1973, an order was passed by the Governor of Haryana reverting Shri N.S. Rao, the then District and Sessions Judge, Ambala to his substantive post of District Attorney. It was the order of reversion which was sought to be served upon Shri N. S. Rao, on account of which the present controversy arose. Plaintiff-Ram Narain was father-in- law of Shri N. S. Rao. Appellant-Hari Chand Hooda was deputed to serve this order upon Shri N.S. Rao. On 23.6.1973, the appellant along with certain police officials searched the house of the plaintiff when “Ghorchari” ceremony of the son of the plaintiff, namely, Lt. Rajinder Singh Yadav was to be performed. His marriage was scheduled for 24.6.1973 at Shimla. R.F.A. No. 1154 of 1982 [2] Deceased - R. N. Singal was then working as General Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon. At about 3.00 P.M., deceased-R.N. Singal accompanied by deceased- Bhim Singh and the appellant along with two constables in uniform entered the house of the plaintiff and without any authorisation searched every nook and corner in the presence of ladies, guests and relatives of the plaintiff, who had come to attend the marriage of his son, which resulted into humiliation and lowered his dignity and prestige in the eyes of his guests and general public. The suit was filed for damages which was transferred and tried by the then District Judge, Chandigarh on original side, in which after considering the evidence on record, a decree of Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of reputation, mental worry and agony was passed in favour of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues: “1. Whether the house of the plaintiff was searched by the defendants illegally, unlawfully and without any right on 23.6.1973 at 3.00 P.M. as alleged ? If so, to what effect ? 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff was insulted, humiliated and suffered in his dignity in the eyes of the public and his relations ? If so, to what effect? 3. To what damage, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to and from whom ? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? 5. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form ? 6. Whether the plaintiff has not served any valid notice under S. 80 CPC to the defendants before filing the suit ? 7. Relief.” The plaintiff besides examining himself as P.W. 6 produced as many as six witnesses, namely, P.W.1- Davinder Singh, P.W.2- Mahesha Nand Sharma, P.W.3- B.S. Yadav, P.W.4- Mangat Ram, P.W.5- N.S. Rao and P.W.7- Bhagwan Singh, whereas the appellant produced D.W.1- Sham Lal, D.W.2- Hari Chand Hooda, D.W.3- R. N. Singal, D.W.4- Bhim Singh, D.W.5- Virinder Nath, D.W.6- P.S. Bhindar, D.W. 7- Mohinder Singh, R.F.A. No. 1154 of 1982 [3] D.W.8- S. K. Sharma, D.W.9- V.S. Ailawadi, D.W.10- Tarsem Kumar Mantru and D.W.11- H.S. Aneja. In rebuttal, the plaintiff examined P. W. 8 -Pritam Singh. Assailing the findings of the learned court below, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in the present case had only performed his official duty, as was assigned to him. He had not exceeded his jurisdiction. No search as such was conducted. It was only that the appellant along with other deceased appellants had gone to the residence of the plaintiff to serve the order of reversion of Shri N.S. Rao, who was informed to be present in the house to attend the marriage of his brother-in- law (brother of his wife). He further submitted that there is apparent contradiction in the version of the plaintiff wherein it is stated that it was about 3.00 P.M. that search was conducted when “Ghorchari” ceremony was to be performed, whereas the intimation regarding service of the order on Shri N.S. Rao had even been furnished to the Registrar of this Court at about 1.30 P.M. by the government. He further submitted that all the witnesses examined by the plaintiff are interested witnesses who were close friends and relatives, whereas the evidence led by the appellant in defence is in the form of statements of senior government officials who were not, at all, interested in the case. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff in the present case had no interest in filing a suit for damages against the appellant had there been no such incident as has been proved by the plaintiff before the court below. The manner in which the appellant behaved is not a normal behaviour in the government functions. Shri N.S. Rao was posted at Ambala as District and Sessions Judge. On the date when the order of his reversion was passed, he was admittedly not present at Ambala. However, the appellant, who was sent to serve the order of reversion on Shri N.S. Rao, was directed to go to Gurgaon to serve the order personally to him. He further submitted that the conduct of the appellant is evident from the fact that an Assistant in the General Service Branch in Civil Secretariat, Haryana was instructed to go to Gurgaon and contact the Deputy Commissioner to get the service of order effected on Shri N. S. Rao, who, in turn, asked his General Assistant, namely, R. N. Singal to accompany the appellant for the R.F.A. No. 1154 of 1982 [4] service of order on Shri N. S. Rao. He further submitted that search of the house of the plaintiff was conducted without there being any authority of law which resulted in humiliation of the plaintiff. The witnesses produced by the plaintiff in his evidence were present when the incident occurred. They all had narrated the facts as they had seen, whereas the evidence led by the appellant in the form of the statements of various government officials is rather in the form of interested witnesses if it is considered in the light of the extra ordinary effort made by the officers at Chandigarh to get the order served on Shri N. S. Rao by using all means. He submitted that the learned court below on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that seeing the gravity of misconduct of the appellant, the plaintiff was entitled to much more damages. However, as the amount claimed by the plaintiff was merely Rs. 10,000/-, a decree to that effect was passed. Still further, the submission is that the plaintiff in the present case was not interested in money as such to claim as damages. Rather, only token amount was claimed as what he wanted was the restoration of his prestige which was lowered in the eyes of his relatives and public on account of the action of the appellant. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The admitted facts on record are that an order of reversion of Shri N.S. Rao was passed, which was sought to be served upon him on account of which admittedly appellant-Hari Chand Hooda went to the residence of the plaintiff. The dispute in the present case is only as to whether it can be called a search or it can be termed merely a visit by the government officials to serve an order of the government upon the employee. What can be gathered from the facts which have come on record is that the so-called visit by the senior government officials cannot be termed as a plain and simple visit to the residence of the plaintiff in the factual background in which the government official from Chandigarh was deputed to firstly go to Ambala personally to serve the order on Shri N.S. Rao and when he was not available at Ambala, he was directed to proceed to Gurgaon to serve the order. The fact that Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon was also involved in the process for service of order itself shows that the effort was to serve the order on Shri N. S. Rao by whatever means and in R.F.A. No. 1154 of 1982 [5] that process keeping in view the background of the case, the contention of the plaintiff that appellant-Hari Chand Hooda who had visited his house was also accompanied by policemen in uniform as well as in plain clothes and that too on an occasion when the celebrations of the marriage of the son of the plaintiff were in progress cannot be disbelieved. There is nothing on record to suggest that there were any written or oral instructions to Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon to depute his General Assistant to accompany appellant- Hari Chand Hooda for service of order on Shri N.S. Rao. This has certainly resulted in insult and humiliation of the plaintiff. It also lowered his dignity in the eyes of public and his relatives. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The findings recorded by the learned court below are clearly borne out from the evidence led by the parties and the same cannot be held to be perverse in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 27,2008 mk