Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It was finally argued by the respondent that the suit was brought not for an Act done by the Engineer, defendant, but for a threatened Act, and, therefore, Section 80, does not apply. I entirely agree with the judgment just now pronounced by my learned brother that a threat to do a future injurious Act, when the threat is conveyed through the performance of an Act, such as speech, writing, sending a notice or message, and so on, is also within the intention of the Legislature, when it uses the word "act" in Section 80. "Acts" are performed according to Indian philosophical notions, by the body, by the ten senses and by the mind (the eleventh sense) though only five of the sense are especially called Karmendriyas. Two of the latter, namely, (1) 'hand', and (2) foot' include all,, muscular exertions, (1) involving motion not involving change of place of the body as a whole; and (2) involving locomotion]. Modern legal tribunals and modern law are both to attach liabilities to a wrongful Act, which is not accompanied by physical motion or physical sound or direct physical feeling which can be perceived by an ordinary man. Though it is said that even a cat can look with impunity on a king, it may be that as the law develops, even a Gnanendriya act, such as, (say looking at the plaintiff in an insolent or threatening manner) will be held by Courts to give a cause of action for damages. There is a conflict of opinion in American Courts whether mere nervous shook caused to the plaintiff (without any apparent external injury), resulting from a wrongful Act, gives rise to a cause of action. Spoken words of slander did not, according to the English Common Law, give rise to a cause of action, except in a limited class of cases; but this Court extended the law of slander in Parvathi v. Mannar 8 M. 175 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 121. I am not sure that with the spread among a considerable body of humanity of mesmeric (or as it is now called hypnotic) and other powers (now abnormal) among mankind, and of the spread of evil influences (even though concealed from ordinary sense perceptions) exercised by such powers, the law may not be obliged to recognise injuries caused by the wrongful (sic) of the Gnanendriyas and even of the mind India. To some bank from these remote (though interesting) speculations to the present case, paragraph 5 of the plaint in this case states that the cause of action arose when the defendant threatened to remove the image and the pandal. It is not denied that the threat was not a mere mental Act, which the plaintiff had learnt by telepathy. The written statement slates that final orders were passed by the defendant in August 1916, for the removal of the image and the pandal. It is not denied that the order was a signed and a written order and was communicated to the plaintiffs, by a perceivable physical act or physical acts done by the defendant or by the agents of the defendant and that that was the threat which gave rise to the plaintiff's cause of action. I, therefore, hold that Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, is applicable to the suit.