CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter was dismissed for default on 22nd february, 1991. An application has been filed by the appellant with the affidavit of counsel stating that he was not able to be present when the appeal was called at the stage of admission because he was busy in another Court Hall and that his senior had left for Mysore on some urgent work. He has further averred that when he came back about 11:45 a. m. from the other Court Hall, this court was not sitting and the appeal had been dismissed. ( 2 ) WHATEVER be the truth or otherwise about the allegations in regard to the counsel being engaged in another Court Hall and his senior having gone to Mysore, the averment that the court had ceased to sit at 11:45 a. m. is apparently a false submission. That would have been enough to dismiss the application. ( 3 ) BUT there is an averment in the affidavit that the plaintiff-appellant has a good case on merits particularly in view of the divergent findings. I therefore asked the learned counsel to submit arguments on merits on the second appeal for admission. He has submitted his arguments. The application for restoration of the appeal is allowed, but the second appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits for the following reasons. ( 4 ) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for permanent injunction based on possession of certain items of immovable property situate in Survey No. 189/2 which he claimed to be the ancestral property and joint family property of the plaintiff. He has alleged that the property in question had been enclosed by barbed wire fencing. The defendant assistant Education Officer interfered with the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the property by committing trespass and forcefully entering the enclosed area; that the defendant assistant Education Officer, Tarikere had no right, title or interest in the property and therefore his trespass with the assistance of the Assistant commissioner on 7-8-1984 amounted to interference with his peaceful possession and therefore, she may ue restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff had filed an application to dispense with the requirement of issuance of a notice under section 80 of the C. P. C. in view of the urgency of the matter. The plaintiff had filed an application to dispense with the requirement of issuance of a notice under section 80 of the C. P. C. in view of the urgency of the matter. ( 5 ) THE defendant entered appearance through the Assistance Public Prosecutor and contested the suit. In the written statement, it was alleged that the plaintiffs averment in regard to his ownership of the property was not tenable. The land in question had been made over to the education Department way back in 1934 and therefore the plaintiff had encroached upon the government land' and it was in that circumstance, she with the assistance of the Assistant commissioner had to enter the enclosed land. The defendant Assistant Education Officer contended that the entire averments of the plaint were false with the sole intention of retaining the illegal possession of the land that had vested in the Government as far back as in 1934. ( 6 ) ON such pleadings, many issues were framed by the trial Court and the plaintiff had proved possession of the land on the date of suit and immediately prior thereto, an injunction came to be granted. ( 7 ) BUT one of the issues framed was, whether the Government was a necessary party in view of order 27, Rule 5-A of C. P. C. On that issue which was Issue No. 3, Munsiff held that Government was not a necessary party. On appeal by the defendant against the Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the learned Civil Judge in RA no. 18 of 1988 has dismissed the suit allowing the appeal solely on the ground that it was mandatory that the plaintiff should have made government as a party in terms of Order 27, Rule 5-A of C. P. C. as the proceedings was against the government Officer in the discharge of his official duties. ( 8 ) THAT Order 27, Rule 5-A of Civil Procedure Code mandates that the Government be made a party whenever an officer is sued for damages in the discharge of his duties or for any other relief is not in doubt, therefore, the lower Appellate court was justified in dismissing the suit for nonjoinder of proper and necessary party. ( 9 ) THAT defect has been sought to be cured by presenting an application in this Court to implead the Government. ( 9 ) THAT defect has been sought to be cured by presenting an application in this Court to implead the Government. I do not think that this court should entertain such an application for amendment. As the suit has come to be dismissed on a technical ground, that finding the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties does not operate as res judicata and a fresh suit may be filed impleading all the necessary parties, to the suit. That would be the only proper remedy for the appellant. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal and therefore it is dismissed. --- *** --- .