JUDGMENT Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J. 1. By this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in brevity 'Code'), the appellant/defendant No. 3 has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1999 whereby and whereunder learned Court below has decreed the suit filed by the respondents No. R-1 and R-2 against the appellant and other respondents and ordered that all the defendants including appellant shall jointly and severally pay the arrears of rent Rs. 87,000/- to respondents No. R-1 and R-2 along with Rs. 21,000/- mesne profit and also to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from the date of presentation of suit till possession of the suit property. Brief facts of the civil suit filed before the Court below as follows:-- Respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiff filed a civil suit before the court below in which they had pleaded that the suit house belongs to them which was given to respondent No. 3/Def. No. 1 on rent. He had not paid rent from October, 1993, also closed the suit house and left for elsewhere. Respondent No. 1 and 2 by filing the civil suit prayed for arrears of rent. Even after notice, respondent No. 3/defendant No. 1 did not pay the arrears of rent. It is further pleaded that on a complaint made by the appellant/defendant No. 3, the said house was sealed by direct or indirect order of defendants No. 2, 4 to 8 and from November, 1993 till May 1998, the police guard was regularly deputed. Hence plaintiff prayed by filing the civil suit that the defendants be directed to pay jointly and severely arrears of rent of Rs. 87,000/- and Rs. 21,000/- as mesne profit from 1-12-1997 till the date of presentation of suit and also to pay Rs. 200/- per day as mesne profit from the filing of the suit till date of eviction of defendants. 2. Before Court below the appellant/defendant No. 3 filed its written statement and pleaded that against defendant D-1 Balkrishna Agrawal, the appellant complained before Jagdalpur police regarding embezzlement of Rs. 74 lacs but they have not done any proceeding for sealing the suit house. They do not know as to which authority has issued order for sealing the suit house or who is in unauthorized possession of the same. Hence no cause of action arises against them. 74 lacs but they have not done any proceeding for sealing the suit house. They do not know as to which authority has issued order for sealing the suit house or who is in unauthorized possession of the same. Hence no cause of action arises against them. The suit filed against them is baseless. 3. Defendants No. 2 and 4 to 8 also filed their written statement and pleaded that the suit pleadings are for defendant No. 1 only. These defendants are nowhere connected with the suit house. The competent authority Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagdalpur/defendant No. 5 proceeded against the defendant No. 1 Bal Krishna Agrawal as he had not got registered his press under the Indian Press Act. The defendant No. 5 ordered for seizure of all necessary articles for publication of paper and also to seal the suit house. Against the said order the defendant No. 1 filed a revision which was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Hence the proceedings made by the defendant No. 5 are valid and as per provisions of the law. The suit land is not under the custody of these defendants. As the defendant No. 5 acted under his lawful authority, all these defendants are not responsible to pay any compensation and no cause of action arises against these defendants. They had also taken a plea that the suit is time barred. Hence the same may be dismissed. 4. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties including framing of issues and opportunity of adducing evidence, learned Court below has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 by the impugned judgment and decree, against which the appellant has preferred the instant first appeal on the ground that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is bad on facts and law. Learned court below erred in holding that possession of the suit accommodation was acquired by the appellant along with other defendants. They had also taken a ground that the trial Court erred in holding that the appellant/defendant No. 3 along with other defendants is liable to pay arrears of rent and also mesne profit to the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2. There is no material on record to hold that the appellant is liable for arrears of rent and mesne profit. They had also taken a ground that the trial Court erred in holding that the appellant/defendant No. 3 along with other defendants is liable to pay arrears of rent and also mesne profit to the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2. There is no material on record to hold that the appellant is liable for arrears of rent and mesne profit. The appellant by filing this first appeal prayed that on the basis of the ground stated in the memo of appeal, the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1999 passed by the trial Court be set aside as against the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below including the impugned judgment and decree. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 3 vehemently argued that they simply made a complaint before the police that defendant No. 1 Balkrishna Agrawal made an embezzlement for an amount of Rs. 74 lacs. It was their legal authority to make a complaint before the concerned police. It was upto the police to investigate the matter as per law and take whatever action they deem fit for redressal of said complaint. He further argued that they are not involved in passing of any order by themselves for seizure or sealing of the suit house. The proceedings were performed by the defendant No. 5/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagdalpur against which the defendant No. 5/Balkrishna Agrawal filed a revision which was also dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and that order attains finality. Further the other defendants No. 2 and 4 to 8 have not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and decree. In these circumstances the appellant may not be said to be in illegal possession or in any way responsible for seizure of the suit house. Hence the judgment and decree impugned as against the appellant be set aside. 7. The respondents No. 1 and 2 supported the impugned judgment and decree awarded by the trial Court and submitted that since the appellant made a complaint and the proceedings were initiated on the basis of said complaint hence the judgment of the trial Court holding the defendants jointly and severely liable for payment of balance amount of rent and mesne profit is just and proper. Hence no interference is required in the impugned judgment and decree. 8. Hence no interference is required in the impugned judgment and decree. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 to 9 submitted that upon a complaint made by the appellant, the SDM, Jagdalpur made order against which respondent No. 3/Balkrishna Agrawal preferred a revision which was dismissed. Ultimately the respondent No. 6 made necessary orders under lawful authority and every defendant in the trial court are jointly and severely liable to honour the judgment and decree and also no amount could be recovered from Respondents No. 4 to 9. Hence the appeal may be dismissed being not maintainable or they be also held not liable for any payment under the judgment and decree impugned. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties I have perused the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court. 10. Before consideration of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff before trial Court, it is a point to note that defendant No. 1 Balkrishna and defendants No. 2 and 4 to 8 have not preferred any appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court hence the judgment and decree as against them attains finality for the moment. The present appellant alone challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree passed against them by the instant appeal. 11. If we go through the pleadings of the defendants No. 2 and 4 to 8, it is revealed that as Def. No. 1 had not registered his press for publication of newspaper under the Indian Press Act, the defendant No. 5 ordered for seizure of all necessary articles and also for sealing the suit house. Therefore, the appellant is not directly or indirectly responsible as the order was made by a competent authority under the relevant provisions of law. The appellant filed his written statement replying entire pleading of the plaintiffs. In addition, he pleaded that as the defendant No. 1 made an embezzlement with appellant for Rs. 74 lacs, he made a complaint to Jugdalpur police which he was supposed to do. The appellant filed his written statement replying entire pleading of the plaintiffs. In addition, he pleaded that as the defendant No. 1 made an embezzlement with appellant for Rs. 74 lacs, he made a complaint to Jugdalpur police which he was supposed to do. If any in situation causes damage to any one by any act which is an offence under the suitable law, the person affected may file a complaint before police for redressal, therefore the appellant has exercised his right by filing a complaint for which it cannot be said that he is in illegal possession or sealed the suit house and its articles. 12. Before trial Court on behalf of plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2, evidence of their Manager Ghanshyam Mishra, statement of plaintiffs were adduced. While appreciating the entire evidence and the document admitted on behalf of the parties in the trial, it is no where proved that in any way the appellant is responsible for any illegal possession or responsible to pay respondents No. 1 and 2 any amount towards arrears of rent or any mesne profit. The trial Court for no valid reason ordered against the appellant that he is also jointly and severely liable to honour the decree. 13. Upon consideration of entire facts and circumstances and the evidence, I am of the opinion that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have not proved their case so far as it relates to appellant for the amount to be paid as arrears on rent and mesne profit and any other amount and there is a scope for interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below so far as it relates to appellant. As the appellant has proved that he is not liable to pay arrears of rent and mesne profit or any other amount jointly and severely to respondents No. 1 and 2, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be and is hereby allowed and it is ordered that:-- (i) The judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 1-A/98 (Smt. Rajmata Krishna Kumari Devi Bhanjdev and Another vs. Balkrishna Agrawal and Others), so far as it relates to appellant, is set aside. (ii) No order as to costs.