The main legal point established is that the requirement of service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be waived if the notice has been given to the concerned necessary party in a proper way, and the dismissal of the suit for non-service of notice upon other respondents was not maintainable in law.

Mutum B.K. Singh, J.

1. The judgment and decree dated 4-1-1999 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Appeal No. 11/1997 confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1996 of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala passed in Money Suit No. 46/1993, has been assailed in this Second Appeal.

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 46/1993 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala and the respondents were the defendants in the said suit.

3. Facts leading to this appeal are, in a nutshell, that the appellant as plaintiff instituted a Money Suit before the learned trial Court against the respondents (defendants). Before institution of the suit, the appellant's Advocate served notice upon the respondent No. 2 only. The suit was filed due to nonpayment of repairing charges of an office vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 2, which was repaired on the basis of the work orders issued by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 contested the suit by filing a written statement alleging, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable, no cause of action arose, hit by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, barred by law of limitation and also suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. The respondent No. 2, however, admitted the fact of placing the work orders for repairing the said office vehicle, receipt of bills submitted by the appellant, service of notice dated 19-6-1993 (Exbt. 1) on him and also admitted that the vehicle was fully repaired and the appellant made demands for payment of the repairing charges. However, no document is on record showing that the respondent No. 2 has been authorised to file written statement on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

4. During the course of trial, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Is the suit maintainable?

2) Whether the plaintiff executed the work as claimed by him as per work order issued by the defendant No. 2?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for the amount of Rs. 20,000/- with interest and cost as prayed for?

4) What are the relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?

The learned trial Court decided the Issue No. 1 partly in favour of the appellant and partly against him. The learned trial Court was of the view that the notice marked Exbt. 1 served upon the respondent No. 2 did not contain the particulars required under Section 80(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, held the same as not a legal notice as required under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial Court, however, held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the appellant but in view of the finding of the Issue No. 1, Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided against the appellant and in the result, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18th July, 1996.

5. On appeal, the learned appellate Court, while affirming the decisions of the learned trial Court, held that the notice (Exbt.-1) served upon the respondent No. 2 cannot be regarded as service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and thus, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 4-1-1999. Hence, this appeal.

6. Upon motion hearing, this Court formulated the substantial questions of law as follows:

a) Whether the substantial question of law involved herein as to what would be manner of construction of Section 80 of the C.P.C?

b) Whether the substantial question of law involved is whether the Section80 of C.P.C. should be read as a whole and given a reasonable interpretation and it should be scrutinized in a pedantic manner and be used as booby-traps?

7. Heard the submission of Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the State-respondents.

8. That, in my considered view both the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court can