( 1 ) GOVERNMENT Press Employees Union, represented by its General Secretary, aggrieved by the order of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 28-7-2003 made in I. A. No. 685/2003 in O. S. No. 6691/2002 had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad twin cities, Anjaiah Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE Revision petitioner aforesaid filed an application I. A. No. 685/2003 in o. S. No. 6691/2002 praying for leave to file the suit without giving notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "code", by exempting the same in the interest of justice. The learned Junior civil Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to leave at the stage of filing written statement and had dismissed the application holding further that the suit is liable to be rejected.

( 3 ) SRI Chakravarthi, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner had submitted that prior to the filing of the suit a letter dated 19-11-2002 was given to the 1st respondent which can be deemed to be a notice under Section 80 of the Code. The Counsel also would maintain that whether the non-issuance of notice is fatal to the maintainability of the suit or not may have to be decided depending upon several facts and circumstances inclusive of the fact whether there had been waiver of the said benefit by the Government or the concerned public Officer. The learned Counsel had further maintained that in view of the same, the plaint cannot be rejected for want of notice under Section 80 of the code and in this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that as per the allegations made in the plaint, it is clear that the respondent had failed to discharge its statutory duties and in view of the failure to perform the statutory duties when an action is brought before the Court, no notice under Section 80 of the Code need be given. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions too in this regard.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, Sri Ali, Counsel representing Sri Shaik Anwar Pasha, the learned Counsel for the respondent would maintain that the maintainability of the suit in the absence of a notice under Section 80 of the Code had been taken by way of an objection at the earliest point of time and the same being mandatory the said defect cannot be cured by mere filing of an application at a later stage for granting leave to file the suit by exempting notice under section 80 of the Code. The learned Counsel also in detail had explained the scope and object of notice under Section 80 of the Code and had concluded that in the light of the reasons recorded in detail by the X Junior Civil Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard both the Counsel.

( 5 ) THE petitioner-Union, a registered Union affiliated to Indian National Trade union Congress (INTUC) filed the suit for declaration of the action of the 1st defendant, Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, Twin cities, in issuing memo dated 6-11-2002 for conducting verification and elections to the petitioner-Union as illegal, arbitrary and against law and for perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant-Returning Officer from conducting elections to the Government Central Press Union, Chanchalguda and assembly Press, Hyderabad, and for other appropriate reliefs. It is stated that the cause of action arose at Musheerabad, Hyderabad where the 1st defendant s office is situated, on 6-11-2002 when the first notice was given calling for information, on 9-11-2002 when reply of plaintiff was given and on 23-11-2002 when the second and final notice was given by the 1st defendant. It is no doubt true that in para-3 of the plaint it was pleaded as hereunder