A suit filed against multiple defendants, including public servants and government bodies, cannot be rejected in its entirety if notice under Section 80 CPC is not served on the public servants and/or government bodies, unless the cause of actions are inextricably interwoven and inseparable.

This revisional application is arising out of an order of reversal while the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaint in view of failure to serve notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon defendant No.3, the learned Appellate Court found that since the defendant No.3 did not raise such point, the plaint cannot be rejected.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is bound to fail in absence of the defendant No.3. It is submitted that in the plaint, definite allegations have been made against the defendant No.3 of collusion and conspiracy with the other defendants. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for deletion of name of the petitioner No.3 from the plaint. It is admitted that such deletion, if allowed, would completely non-suit the plaintiff. It appears that an application for amendment of plaint was filed. The said application, however, was not heard prior to the disposal of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears to this Court that the said application should have been heard prior to the hearing of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The object of notice under Section 80 is to afford an opportunity to the Government or a Public Officer to reconsider the matter in the light of legal position and to settle the claim out of Court if so advised (State of Punjab v. Geeta Iron & Brass Works; 1978 (1) SCC 68). Section 80 C.P.C. prohibits institution of a suit unless the conditions laid down there in are satisfied. It has been observed in Bihari Chowdhury v. State of Bihar (1984(2) SCC 627) that the object of the section is the advancement of justice and securing of public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation. The provisions of Section 80 are mandatory and the terms of the section are express and explicit and admit no implications or exceptions. The said section as held in Bhagchand v. Secretary of State (AIR 1927 PC 176) and subsequently followed in a number of decisions including Ghanshyam Das v. Dominion of India (1984(3) SCC 46) casts a statutory and unqualified obligation upon the Court. Notice under Section 80 is the first step in the litigation and no Court can entertain a suit unless a notice required under the section has been duly served on the Government or a Public Officer, as the case may be. A question arises regarding maintainability of suit where a suit has been instituted against several defendants and one of such defendants is Government or Public Officer and the notice under this Section has not been given to it or him. It has been the consistent view of all High Courts and well-settled position in law that the suit, as a whole, is not bad but is bad and not maintainable against the Government or Public Officer, as the case may be. It can, however, continue against the other defendants. It all depends upon the nature of the cause of action pleaded and if it is found that the causes of action are not separable, the suit as a whole, must fail. It has been held in Kangamma v. Ramlingam (AIR 1948 Pat 117) that the proper test would be to see whether failure to serve the notice on the Government or Public Office would involve the dismissal of the suit in its entirety and whether such suit is maintainable as against the private individual without impleading the Government or Public Officer as the party to the suit. The benefit of exclusion of time has been considered by the Kerala High Court in Nair v. Union of India (AIR 1991 Ker 80) in which it was held that when a suit is jointly filed against several defendants and one of the defendants is the Government or a public officer, the plaintiff can get the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and he will be entitled to exclusion of notice period. It cannot be contended by the other defendants that the such benefit is not available to the plaintiff against them as notice was not necessary in th