JUDGMENT P.R. Sharma, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit for damages for wrongful arrest and confinement has been dismissed by the Courts below. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may briefly be stated as under. The plaintiff Dinanath Singh, a Thakur by caste, residing at village Porsa was arrested on 21-12-51 by defendant No. 2 Munnalal, S.I.P., Porsa, at about mid-day. He was kept in police custody till the next morning when he was produced before a Magistrate. He was thereafter sent to the lunatic asylum at Lashkar. The R.M.O. of the Mental Hospital, Lashkaron 31-1-52 certified that the plaintiff's mental condition was quite normal. On receipt of the medical report, the Magistrate, Morena on 5-2-52 ordered the plaintiff to be discharged. The plaintiff averred in his plaint that he was an active member of the Ram Rajya Parishad and was doing intensive propaganda on behalf of his party in connection with the elections to be held in the coming month. He maintained that he was never of an unsound state of mind and that his arrest and confinement by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was wrongful and without any just or reasonable cause. He, therefore, claimed damages in the sum of Rs. 500. 3. Curiously enough the S.I.P., Munnalal, who had made the arrest did not file any written statement. The suit at first proceeded ex-parte against him; but he later on applied saying that he should be taken to have submitted his written statement through the defendant No. 1 and the ex-parte order should be set aside. 4. The Civil Judge, Morena, set aside the ex-parte order but did not permit Munnalal to file a written statement. I am distinctly of the opinion that by doing so he unwillingly afforded a sort of protection to Munnalal, who having effected the plaintiff's arrest, was bound in law to explain the circumstances which gave him reason to believe that the plaintiff was a violent lunatic. In his deposition Munnalal admitted that he did not himself see the plaintiff throwing stones at or abusing anybody. He was merely informed by certain persons to that effect and had made inquiries from certain others before arresting the plaintiff. 5. The record of the statements made by these persons was not produced in this case on behalf of the defence. He was merely informed by certain persons to that effect and had made inquiries from certain others before arresting the plaintiff. 5. The record of the statements made by these persons was not produced in this case on behalf of the defence. Mere information by some persons to the police that a certain person was throwing stones or abusing others could not by self be any reasons for the Sub-Inspector Police to believe that the person was a lunatic. There may be a variety of reasons for such behavior besides lunacy. The law requires exercise of due care and attention on the part of a Police Officer in while exercising his powers under Section 13 of the Indian Lunacy Act. The protection afforded in Section 97 of the Indian Lunacy Act is available only in those cases in which a person does an act under the Act in good faith or in respect of an act intended to be done by him under the Act. If an act was in good faith intended to be done under the Act, the person doing it may be entitled to claim the protection of Section 97, even if it be subsequently found that he had no power to do that act. The crucial question therefore in this case is whether the defendant No. 2 had acted with due care and attention and in a reasonable manner in believing that the plaintiff was a lunatic and arresting him on that ground. An unfortunate feature of this case is that neither of the Courts below seems to have been alive to the questions which have necessarily to be determined in a case of this kind. Even the pleadings in the case do not show that the parties themselves were alive to the requirements of the law in this behalf. 6. The result has been that there has not been even the semblance of a trial in this case. The attention of the parties and the Court was never focussed on the material questions arising in the case and the judgments passed by the two courts below bear indications of the extremely superficial attention given by them to this case. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the fact that Munnalal himself had admitted that he was a second Sub-Inspector of Police Station Porsa. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the fact that Munnalal himself had admitted that he was a second Sub-Inspector of Police Station Porsa. Section 13 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, gives the power of arrest in such cases only to an Officer in-charge of a Police Station. This fact was. However, not mentioned in the plaint and the defendants had no opportunity to admit or deny it or to tender any evidence to show that even though Munnalal was not the permanent Station House Officer, he was at the time of effecting the plaintiff s arrest in-charge of the Police Station. These are all matters for evidence which could not be tendered in the absence of proper pleadings. I should have refused to consider this ground at all in the present appeal had it not been for the fact that the defendant Munnalal himself admitted in his statement that he was the second Sub-Inspector at Police Station Porsa. On this admission it was only to be expected that the defence should have come forward with an explanation as to the circumstances under which the powers of an Officer-in-charge of the Police Station under Section 13 of the Indian Lunacy Act were exercised by defendant No. 2. No such attempt was, however, made. The entire materials on the basis of which Munnalal entertained a belief in his mind that the plaintiff was a lunatic were also not placed on the record of this case. 8. Yet another point which does not seem to have attracted the attention of the parties to this suit or the Courts which dealt with it is that no power has been given to a Police Officer under the provisions of the Indian Lunacy Act to keep a person arrested under Section 13 of the Act, in police custody. We do not find any provision in the Indian Lunacy Act analogous to Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 13 itself lays down that any person so arrested shall be taken forthwith before the Magistrate. The lower Courts have not applied their minds to the question as to whether in the circumstances of this case Dinanath Singh can be said to have been produced 'forthwith before the Magistrate'. 9. Section 13 itself lays down that any person so arrested shall be taken forthwith before the Magistrate. The lower Courts have not applied their minds to the question as to whether in the circumstances of this case Dinanath Singh can be said to have been produced 'forthwith before the Magistrate'. 9. I do not wish to express any opinion on the points noted above, since I am remanding this suit for a retrial to the lower Court. I have only pointed out the particular instances in which the defective nature of the pleadings in the case have resulted in the attention of the parties not being focussed on the real matters in controversy. Yet another important aspect of the case which appears to have been altogether ignored from consideration by the Courts below is as to the authority under which the plaintiff was detained in custody even after the doctor had certified him to be in a normal state of mind. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff on realising the defects in the plaint, as also the learned Government Advocate on finding that no written statement was filed by defendant No. 2 have both found themselves faced with the difficult problem of arguing the case in the absence of proper materials on its record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff actually came forward with a prayer for leave to amend his plaint. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand made a prayer that in the event of the suit being remanded Munnalal should be permitted to file a written statement. 11. I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and am of the opinion that a retrial of the suit after due amendment of the plaint and an opportunity being afforded to the defendant No. 2 Munnalal to file his written statement is necessary in the interests of justice in this case. 12. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside and the suit is remanded for retrial in accordance with law and the directions given and observations made by me above. Costs in the suit shall follow the event. The plaintiff shall, however, bear the entire costs of the defendants in the proceedings till the stage of remand. Appeal allowed