1. The plaintiff in OS(SR).No.3276 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution aggrieved by the return of her plaint on the ground of non-compliance with Section 80 CPC.

2. OS(SR).No.3276 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking a declaration that the sale deed bearing Document No.2221 of 2002 dated 29.04.2002 executed in favour of defendant 9 in respect of the suit schedule property was null and void. She also sought a permanent injunction restraining defendants 8 and 9 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Plot No.7, admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.Nos.404 and 405, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Rampally Village and Gram Panchayat, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Ranga Reddy Judicial District), is the suit schedule property.

3. For reasons best known to her, the petitioner-plaintiff added the State of Telangana represented by its Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad; the District Registrar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District; the Sub-Registrar, Shamirpet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District; and the Sub-Registrar, Keesara, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as defendants 1 to 4 in the suit, though she sought no relief against them.

4. The suit papers were returned on 08.05.2018 with certain objections and were re-submitted on 04.06.2018. The suit papers were again returned by the trial Court with objections on 07.06.2018. One of the objections was that a Section 80 CPC petition was not filed. The suit papers were re-submitted on 13.06.2018 and as to the objection raised in connection with Section 80 CPC, it was stated that legal notice dated 03.02.2018 was issued to the officials prompting a reply on 26.02.2018 from defendant 1 and hence notice, as required under Section 80 CPC, was complied with. It was further stated that it was not necessary in any event as the suit claim was against the other defendants and that the issue was covered by the decision in KOLANATI SATYANARAYANA V/s. NIZAMPATNAM MASTAN, 2007(1) ALD 497. The suit papers were however returned again on the very same day i.e., 13.06.2018, with the following endorsement:

5. All objections are complied but a petition is not filed under Section 80 CPC which is required as defendants 1 to 4 are Government bodies.

6. Hence returned to comply the same within 7 days.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, her learned counsel. As the suit is yet to be registered, this Court does not deem it necessary to put respondents 1 to 8 herein, the defendants in the suit, on notice or afford them an opportunity of hearing at this stage.

8. Section 80 CPC reads as under:

80. Notice:-

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) 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 Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorized by that Government in this behalf;

(c) in the case of a suit against any other State 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 the