The provisions of section 80 of the CPC are not intended to be used as a trap for defeating the claimant's suits against the Government. There has to be a broad commonsense approach to the problem and once the Courts find that there has been a substantial compliance with law, they would be chary to non-suit plaintiff, having a just claim, because of some fanciful breach, insignificant omission or minor infraction of a technical nature.

( 1 ) THE short question, which arises for determiation in this Regular First appeal filed by Hasish Chandcrp a ntily appellant against Union of India, is whether the appellant served a valid notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below answered the question in the negative and dismissed the plaintiffs suit on that ground alone.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that in December 1948 the Assistant Controller. Printing and Stationary, Estern Punjab Railway, placed an order wi (h thj plaintiff for the Binding of 23000 Guard Limp Cover Piles. The files were to be stitched in books with three patches of cloth parted inside. The plaintiff carried out the work and delivered the files after doing the needful. A dispute then arose between the parties with regard the rate at which the plaintiff was to be paid for the work done by him. According to the plaintiff, the payment for the work done was to be made at the rate of eight annas per file, whereas the railway authoriies allege that the Payment was to be made in accordance with the rate- mentioned in the Government Schedule. The railway authorities paid Rs. 4,076. 00/ 3. 00 to the plaintiff in accordance with the rates mentioned in the Government Schedule. The plaintiff on the other hand claimed that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,500. 00 at the rate of eight annas per file. After givi- ng credit for the amount already received, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 7. 42/13. 00 against the defendant. According to the plaintiff. before filing the suit he served a notice through his counsel Mr. Radhey Mohan Lal, Advocate on 22nd May 1950 on the competent officers and the Governirent under the section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 3 ) THE defendant in the written statement admitted the receipt of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure but challenged the validity of the same. A number of other pleas were raised, but we aie not concerned with them. Issue No. 1, as framed in the case was :-

1st, Is the notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure invalid ?

( 4 ) THE trial Court derided issues other than issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. It as held that the railway authorities had specifically agrreed to make payment to the plaintiff at the rate of eight Annas per file and that the plaintiff was entitled to receive Rs. 11,500. 00 Issue No. 1 was, however, decided against the plaintiff, and in view of the finding on issue No. 1 the suit was dismissed

( 5 ) IN appeal Mr. Aggarwal on behalf of the appellant has assailed the finding of the Court below on issue No. 1 and has contended that the notice, original of which has been produced by the defendant and has been n. arked as Exhibit D6, was valid and in accordance with law. As against that, Mr Nanak Chand on behalf of the respondent has canvassed for the correctness of the view of the Court below. After hearing the learned counsel we are of the view that the conteation advanced on behalf of the appellant must prevail.

( 6 ) NOTICE Exhibit D-6, which was sent by Mr. Radhey Mohan Lal on behalf of the plaintiff on 22nd May 1950, was according to its heading, addressed to (!) the Central Government of India through the Ministry of Railway. New Delhi and (2) the. Administrative Officer, Eastern Punjab Railway, New Delhi. At the foot of the notice, the following words were added:-

"the above notice is being sent to the Chief Administrative Officer, E P. R. Delhi under the Indian Railways Act. "according to section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure notice in the rase of suit against the Central Gavernment where it relates to a railway, has to be addressed to the General Manager of the railway. It would, however, appear that so far as the Eastern Punjab Railway is con- cerned there was, at the relevant time, no General Manager of that rail- way. As it was a small ralway its admini^rntive organization was retain- ed on a lower level and instead of