1. Suit against the State — Requirement of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. — Impleadment of State without objection. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
SANT PRASAD – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KAUSLA NAND SINHA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 287-288/2011
Decided On : 01-09-2017
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement for notice under Section 80 C.P.C. may not be tenable in cases where the respondent/State was permitted to be impleaded as a party without objection.
Headnote:
Section 80 C.P.C. - Notice Requirement - The court held that while notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is generally required for instituting a suit, in this particular case where the respondent/State was permitted to be impleaded as a party without objection, the requirement for notice was not tenable.
Fact of the Case:
The only issue raised in the appeals was whether Section 80 C.P.C. notice was required for instituting the suit. The High Court stated the general requirement for notice under Section 80 C.P.C. but failed to consider that the respondent/State was impleaded as a party without objection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the stand taken by the High Court regarding the requirement for notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was not tenable in the given factual background. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to file an application before the High Court to consider their case on merits, without dismissing it on the ground of delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was required for instituting the suit, and the court also addressed the liberty granted to the appellant to file an application before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the respondent/State was permitted to be impleaded as a party without objection, leading to the conclusion that the requirement for notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was not tenable in this case.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of with the court granting liberty to the appellant to file an application before the High Court to consider their case on merits, without dismissing it on the ground of delay.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 80 C.P.C. notice is mandatory for instituting a suit when the State is impleaded as a party without objection. (Para 1 )
3. The High Court's position is untenable because the State was impleaded as a party and raised no objection to the lack of notice. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. The general requirement of Section 80 C.P.C. notice is waived if the State is impleaded as a party and raises no objection. (Para 1 , 2 )
5. Appeals disposed of with liberty to the appellant to apply to the High Court for merit-based consideration, regardless of delay. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Is notice under Section 80 C.P.C. generally required for instituting a suit against the State?
Yes, in principle, notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is required for instituting a suit against the State. (Para 1 , 2 )
7. Does the requirement of Section 80 C.P.C. notice apply if the State is impleaded as a party without objection?
No, the requirement is not tenable if the State was permitted to be impleaded as a party and raised no objection at that time. (Para 1 , 2 )
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.
The only issue raised in these appeals is whether Section 80 C.P.C. notice was required for instituting the suit. The High Court has stated, in principle, that for instituting a suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is required. But unfortunately the High Court omitted to take note of the fact that the respondent/State was permitted to be impleaded as party and there was no objection taken by the State at that time.
2. In that factual background, we are of the view that the stand taken by the High Court is not tenable, though, in principle, we have no quarrel with the general proposition that for instituting a suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is required.
3. There is no appearance on behalf of the appellants. We do not think that any fruitful purpose will be served by retaining this case before this Court. We do not also intend to remit it to the High Court, since it will be another round of litigation.
4. However, in the interest of justice, we grant the liberty to the appellant or anybody claiming through the appellant to file an application before the High Court to consider their case on merits. In case such an application is filed on behalf of the appellant, the same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay and the High Court may consider the matter on merits.
5. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
7. There shall be no orders as to costs.
