JUDGMENT

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J..— The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave concerns the true scope and application of Section 80 of the CiviI Procedure Code.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in a suit instituted in the Munsiffs Court, Bihar Sharif, seeking the reliefs of declaration of title and delivery of possession with mesne profits in respect of the properties described in the plaint. The State of Bihar - the 1st, respondent herein - is the main defendant in the suit. Prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs had issued a notice to the 1st respondent - State- under Section 80 C. P. C. on 18-2-1969 and Exhibit 2 is a copy of the said notice. However, without waiting for the statutory period of two months, the plaintiffs instituted the suit on 2-4-1969. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it was contended, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable for want of proper notice under Section 80 C. P. C. This contention was upheld by the trial Court which also recorded findings against the plaintiffs on the remaining issues concerning the title to the property and their entitlement to reliefs of declarations and delivery of possession. The first appellate Court to which the matter was carried in appeal by the plaintiffs dismissed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable inasmuch as due notice under Section 80 C. P. C. had not been given. A second appeal preferred by the appellants to the High Court at Patna did not meet with any success and it was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.

3. We are concerned in this case with S. 80 C. P. C as it stood prior to its amendment, by Act 104 of 1976 (Even under the amended provision, the position remains unaltered insofar as a suit of this nature is concerned). We shall extract the Section as it stood at the material time :

"80. No suit shall be instituted against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of-

(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, except where it relates to a railway, a Secretary to that Government;

(b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway.

* * * * *

(bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf;

(c) in the case of a suit against any other Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district; ***

* * * * * * *

and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left."

The effect of the Section is clearly to impose a bar against the institution of a suit against the Government or a public officer in respect of any act purported to be done by him in his official capacity until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the Secretary to Government or Collector of the concerned district and in the case of a public officer delivered to him or left at his office, stating the particulars enumerated in the last part of sub-section (1) of the Section. When we examine the scheme of the section it becomes obvious that the section has been enacted as a measure of public policy with the object of ensuring that before a suit is instituted against the Government or a public officer, the Government or the officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinis