Conclusive preliminary order treated as a decree; official acts by public servants attracted statutory protection absent Governor's consent.

An order that conclusively strikes out defendants on a preliminary statutory bar is treated in substance as a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, so an appeal lies and revision is excluded. The court also held that suits against public servants were barred under Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 because the challenged acts were official in character and purportedly done in execution of duty; allegations of bad faith, malice, or conspiracy did not alter that character. Governor's consent was therefore required, and the suits could not proceed against the protected defendants.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order striking out the defendants on the ground of statutory bar was, in substance, a decree appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, so as to bar revision; (ii) whether the institution of the suits against the public servants was barred by Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 in the absence of the Governor's consent.

Issue (i): whether the order striking out the defendants on the ground of statutory bar was, in substance, a decree appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, so as to bar revision.

Analysis: The order finally determined, as between the plaintiff and the concerned defendants, that no relief could be obtained against them and therefore answered the controversy on the preliminary bar in a conclusive manner. The substance of the order, rather than its form, was material. An order that conclusively decides the rights of parties on a preliminary issue and prevents the suit from proceeding against them is treated as a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2), and the existence of an appealable remedy excludes recourse to revision.

Conclusion: The order was appealable as a decree and revision was not the proper remedy.

Issue (ii): whether the institution of the suits against the public servants was barred by Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 in the absence of the Governor's consent.

Analysis: The statutory protection applies where the suit is in respect of an act done or purported to be done in the execution of official duty. The receipt of the affidavit, institution of the complaint, taking cognizance, and the giving of evidence by the concerned officers were treated as official acts or acts purporting to be done in discharge of duty. Allegations of bad faith, malice, or conspiracy did not change the official character of acts which, on their face, were acts done in the execution of duty. Since the causes of action depended on those official acts, previous consent of the Governor was necessary.

Conclusion: The suits against the public servants were barred by Section 270(1) without the Governor's consent.

Final Conclusion: The revisional applications failed both because an effective appeal lay against the impugned order and because the statutory protection under Section 270(1) was attracted on the merits, so the suits could not proceed against the protected defendants.

Ratio Decidendi: An order that conclusively rejects relief against particular defendants on a preliminary statutory bar is a decree and is appealable, and an act which is official in character and purportedly done in the execution of duty remains within the statutory protection despite allegations of malice or conspiracy.

---