Parties were put to notice that the matter shall be finally disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. Heard Mr. J. Vaz, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 and Mr. K. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.11 and 12.

3. This appeal arises out of the judgment, order and decree dated 09.07.2012, passed by the learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji, in Civil Suit No. 68/2009, thereby rejecting the plaint as against defendants no.11 and 12 and further directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs to be re-presented before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of Civil Suit No. 68/2009.

5. Facts, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are as under:

Initially, the plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No. 113/2005/C, before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, against the defendants no. 1 to 10 and Government was not a party to that suit. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs were co-owners of the suit property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants jointly and/or severally from alienating, transferring, selling or creating any third party rights in the suit property. On 17.04.2009, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed before the Civil Judge Senior Division, by which the plaintiffs sought to add defendant no. 11 i.e. the State of Goa as party to the suit and a prayer to the effect that the suit property admeasures 45393 sq. metres in terms of the planta No. 12084/LN27 and survey authorities be directed to carry necessary corrections in their records. This amendment was sought as the name of Government was recorded in the occupants column of survey records of Form I & XIV in respect of the suit property. By order dated 17.04.2009, the said amendment application was allowed. After the amendment was carried out to the plaint, defendant no. 11 was served with the notice. On 27.07.2009, an application was filed by the plaintiffs before the Civil Judge Senior Division, for transfer of the said suit to the District Court since the Government was added as party to the suit due to which the Civil Judge Senior Division had ceased to have jurisdiction in the said matter. This application was allowed. On 28/8/2009, an application, on behalf of the Government, also came to be filed, before the Civil Judge Senior Division, alleging that the Civil Judge Senior Division had ceased to have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction vested in the District Court. An order dated 15/9/2009 was passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division sending the file to the District Court.

6. The suit was then registered before the District Court as Civil Suit No. 68/2009. Defendant No. 12 came to be added to the cause title. Defendants no.11 and 12, in their written statement, filed before the District Judge-I, alleged that the suit is not maintainable since no notice as required to be given under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) was given to them.

7. By consent of the parties, the trial Court heard the learned counsel for the parties on the plea of non-maintainability of the suit for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. and by the impugned Judgment and Order held that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to have issued notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. to the defendants no. 11 and 12. Since no such notice was issued, the plaint was rejected as against defendants no. 11 and 12.

8. Mr. Vaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, submitted that the suit was only for declaration that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit property along with defendants no. 1 to 10 and for injunction as against the said defendants and not as against any public officer in respect of acts done by him in his official capacity and that the defendants no