( 1 ) THE next question which is required to be considered is in respect of the effect of the suit against defendants nos. 8 and 13 when notice under sec. 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 was not given to the Registrar as provided by that section. The learned Advocate Miss Shah submitted that this section is analogous to sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code before amendment stood as under :80 Notice No suit shall be instituted against the Government including the State of Jammu and Kashmir or against a public officer in respect of any act populating 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 Kas hmir the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by the 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 relief which he claims and the plaints shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. IT was submitted that defendant No. 8 did Not file any written statement and therefore in the trial Court there was no issue regarding notice so far as defendant No. 8 is concerned. Therefore defendant No. 8 waived the notice inasmuch as there was no contention raised in regard to the notice and inasmuch as it was not prayed that a specific issue may be raised there was no issue in the trial Court. It appears that for the first time in the first Appellate Court it was submitted that the suit against defendant No. 8 was not maintainable inasmuch as notice under sec. 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act was not given.

( 2 ) A few authorities were cited. The first authority which was cited was GAJA AND OTHERS V. DASA KOERI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN A. I. R. 1964 ALLAHABAD AT PAGE 471. In that case it was observed If the State Government could be said to have waived its objection regarding want of notice by not taking a plea to that effect in a written statement filed by it it can be said with equal reason that the State Government waived it by filing no written statement at all. It was also observed If a notice can be and has been waived by the authority concerned it is not open to any other party to the suit to urge want of notice against the maintainability of the suit

( 3 ) THE second ruling which was referred to was a case PALETI SIVARAMKRISHNAIAH V. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N. C. CANALS SATHENAPALLI AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN A. I. R. 1978 ANDHRA PRADESH AT PAGE 389. In that case it was held as under :notice under sec 80 is mandatory. Even a mandatory provision can be waived if it is not concerned in public interest but in the interest of the party that waives it. Notice under sec. 80 is meant for the benefit of the party to whom it is intended. It can be waived by the party for whose benefit it is intended. IT was also observed that where objection as to notice was raised in the written statement but no issue was framed on the point and no objection was taken subsequently on this score at any subsequent stage of the trial nor any application was made for amendment of the issues the defendant must be deemed to have waived the notice.

( 4 ) THE third ruling which was cited was a case of JULAL MANDAL V. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN A. I. R. 1978 PATNA AT PAGE 42. It was a case where