P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises two points for determination. One is whether notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code is at all a part of the cause of action. The other is whether, in any event, the place from where such notice is issued or posted gives the Court of that place jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts on which these questions are raised may be stated briefly. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the then Dominion of India for a decree for the sum of Rs. 10,746-3-4p. for loss and short delivery of certain goods' sent over the Assam Railway. The places from where the goods were despatched were Sealdah and Wadi Bandar, G. I. P. Railway both outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. The destination of these goods was Cooch Behar also outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. The plaint pleaded service of the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the General Manager of the Assam Railway also outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. The notices under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code in this case are of different dates in respect of the ten consignments and are printed in the Paper Book. The point to note about all these notices is that they were sent from 18, Amratolla Street, Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of this Court and addressed to the General Manager, Assam Railway, Pandu, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. G. K. Mitter, J. dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, without delivering a judgment. The plaintiff has appealed.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the decree of dismissal on the ground that the Court should have held that because the notices under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code in this case were sent from a place within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court had the jurisdiction to try and determine this suit. It must be recorded here that the learned Advocate has abandoned his other grounds of appeal about the service of the notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act being a part of the cause of action.

( 4 ) THE point that remains for decision in the appeal is the point relating to notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. A slow but steady erosion has engulfed much of the law relating to notice under Section 80 of the Code. Even the place from where such notice was posted or sent was formerly regarded as giving the court of that place jurisdiction to entertain a suit where notice under Section 80 of the Code was necessary. This theory was subsequently discarded by the Courts and yielded place to the idea that it was more the place where such notice was left or served that was a material part of the cause of action. Now the tendency is more radical and the better judicial opinion is that notice under Section 80 of the Code is not at all a part of the cause of action and so neither the place from where it is sent nor the place where it is served is relevant or material to invest the court of that place with jurisdiction to entertain a suit where such notice requires to be pleaded. The Law Commission in this changing legal climate on Section 80 of the Code is perhaps not unwise in recommending"we are clearly of the view that the provision requiring notice in such cases should be omitted. There is no justification for placing the Government and public officers in a different position from private parties in this respect". Law Commission 14th Report on Reform of Judicial Administration Vol. I page 476.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on the decision of S. B. Sinha, J. in Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Governor-General-in-Council. ILR (1950) 2 Cal 551, as being practically the only case which supports his contention. The learned Judge at pp. 558-559 of the Report observed as follows :"the issue and service of notice is a fact material to be proved to entitle the plain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document