The Calcutta High Court has held that State is not vicariously liable for judicial actions.
The single-judge bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf allowed an application for rejection of plaint seeking compensation of ₹100 crore against the State of West Bengal on account of vicarious liability for an alleged act of defamation committed by a High Court Judge.
The present application is on behalf of the State for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The plaintiff herein took following actions against the accused Judge:
-Filed complaint under Section 500 IPC before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
-Filed petition with High Court at Calcutta which was dismissed without costs with observation that a private person is not authorized under Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act to initiate action against a judge by instituting civil or criminal proceedings.
-Addressed a letter to the Member in Charge and Secretary in Charge of the Law Department, Government of West Bengal, inter alia urging the addressees to initiate proceedings
-Four years later, the Advocate on Record for the Plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Secretary of Home Affairs for compensation of Rs. 100 Crores due to alleged inaction of the State.
The Counsel for the defendent primarily stated that the present suit is barred by limitation because the plaint admits to a delay of 1964 days in filing of the present suit for which cause of action arose on August 7, 2009 when the Apex Court passed the judgment in Criminal Appeal. As far as the claim of the plaintiff of being an NRI goes in justifying the delay, he contended that there is no provision in the Limitation Act, 1963, under which plaintiff's absence from the territories of India forms a justifiable ground for condoning the delay in filing the suit. He further averred that the suit lacks action.
Reliance was placed on Merlin Projects Limited –v- Smt. Giniya Devi Agarwala & Anr., Rajendra Bajoria Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan, 2021 Latest Caselaw 414 SC, T. Arivandandam Vs. T. Vs. Satyapal & ANR, 1977 Latest Caselaw 201 SC, M/S Popat & Kotecha Property & Ors. Vs. Ashim Kumar Dey, 2018 Latest Caselaw 523 SC,
The Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Supreme Court has time and again made it clear that at the Order VII Rule 11 stage it is important to see the averments made in the plaint and the argument of the defendants will be absolutely immaterial for that. If averments in the plaint justifies the delay or exemption it will be decided in the trial as to whether the same is justified or acceptable on not, he stated.
He placed reliance on C. Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai & Anr, 2007 Latest Caselaw 828 SC, Bhanu Kumar Shastri Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia & Ors, 1971 Latest Caselaw 30 SC.
He asserted that the plaint speaks for itself and it very well contains the clear cause of action. The defendant/applicant’s contention is wrong as there is a specific ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the Country that at Order VII Rule 11 stage it is important to see whether averments in the plaint disclose any cause of action and nothing further needs to be seen. Everything else including the merit of the cause needs to be decided by way of adjudication in the trial. Reliance was placed on P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & ANR. Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors. Etc., 2015 Latest Caselaw 106 SC.
He asserted that the instant suit is in no way barred under any provision of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 because the Judges Protection Act, 1985 does not provide blanket protection to Judges and submitted that As per Section 3 (2) of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 the Central Government, the State Government, the Supreme Court of India, the High Court, or any other authority under any law for the time being in force can take appropriate action against a Judge
The instant suit has been filed against the defendant for not exercising its powers under Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 and arbitrarily and whimsically causing limitless suffering to the plaintiff which 9 includes severe psychological pain and agony, financial losses, emotional damage and so on, and as such it is very much clear that the suit has been filed against the defendants for not exercising its statutory powers causing injustice, he said.
High Court's Analysis
The Court began by looking into scope of Order 7 Rule 11. It referred to T. Arivandandam, wherein the Supreme Court that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint the same provides an impression that it is manifestly vexatious, meritless and not disclosing a clear right to sue then power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC should be exercised to ensure that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled
The Court also mentioned rulings in M/S Popat & Kotecha Property & Ors. Vs. Ashim Kumar Dey, 2018 Latest Caselaw 523 SC, Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat, 2021 Latest Caselaw 313 SC, C. Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai & Anr, 2007 Latest Caselaw 828 SC,
The Court ruled that the plaint is barred under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action?
The Court noted that the plaintiff did not file any suit for claiming damages for mental agony suffered by him after unsuccessfully claiming remedy from the Court. The relationship between the plaintiff and the State is nowhere in the picture when the plaintiff was seeking remedy by filing criminal cases against the Hon’ble Judge, the Court remarked.
"When the plaintiff approached the State without even a single finding in favour of the defamation allegation made by him against the Hon’ble Judge, it would not be correct to say that at such moment the cause of action has arisen to proceed against the State for claiming damages due to mental agony. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action to proceed against the State. It appears to me that after exhausting the criminal remedies the plaintiff moved before the State authorities without highlighting any cause of action."
Case Title: Dr. Kunal Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Details: I.A. G.A. NO. 5 of 2019 (Old No. G.A. 2788 of 2019) in C.S. NO. 293 of 2017
Coram: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
