The mandatory nature of the notice requirement under S. 80, C. P. C. and the inapplicability of an application under S. 115, C. P. C. when an appeal is provided under S. 96 of the Code.

Headnote:
S. 80, C. P. C. - Notice Requirement - The court held that a notice under S. 80 of the C. P. C. is mandatory and forms a part of the cause of action before filing a suit against the Government or a Public Officer. The rejection of the plaint was justified as the plaintiff failed to serve the required notice.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a woman, filed a suit for compensation against the State of Manipur and two others for the demolition of her houses. The suit was rejected by the Subordinate Judge No. 2, Manipur, on the ground of non-compliance with the notice requirement under S. 80, C. P. C.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the plaint was justified as the plaintiff failed to serve the mandatory notice under S. 80 of the C. P. C. The court also held that an application under S. 115, C. P. C. was not maintainable, as an appeal was provided under S. 96 of the Code against such an order.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the plaint due to non-compliance with the notice requirement under S. 80, C. P. C. and the maintainability of the application under S. 115, C. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was the mandatory nature of the notice requirement under S. 80, C. P. C. before filing a suit against the Government or a Public Officer. The court also clarified that an application under S. 115, C. P. C. was not maintainable, and an appeal was the appropriate remedy under S. 96 of the Code.
Final Decision: The application under S. 115, C. P. C. was rejected, and the rule was discharged. The parties were left to bear their own costs. The revision was dismissed.

Judgement

This is an application under S. 115, C. P. C. and is made on behalf of the plaintiff, who is a woman, and who brought the suit for compensation against the State of Manipur (defendant No. 1) and two others as defendants, claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- for demolition of her houses. The learned Subordinate Judge No. 2, Manipur, rejected the plaint on the ground that no notice under S. 80, C. P. C. was issued to defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2, who is also a Public Officer.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error committed by the learned Court below. A notice under S. 80 of the C. P. C. is mandatory and forms a part of the cause of action, and before a suit is filed against the Government or against a Public Officer, in respect of any act purporting to be done by such Public Officer in his official capacity, a notice under S. 80, C. P. C. shall be served on them. Further, the section provides that the plaint itself shall contain a statement to the effect that such a notice has been delivered or left with the defendant. No such averment has been made by the plaintiff in the plaints. As such, the learned Court below has committed no error in rejecting the plaint.

3. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the application under S. 115, C. P. C. itself is not maintainable, inasmuch as, an appeal is provided under S. 96 of the Code against such an order. Mr. Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order of the learned Court below is an order and as such not appealable. The submission has no force, Decree has been denned in sub-s. (2) of S. 2 of the Code. According to the second part of the definition a decree "shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint xxx xxx." As such, although rejection of a plaint is not a formal decree, but within the deeming and inclusive definition of the term, rejection of a plaint is a decree, and as such, appealable under S. 96 of the Code.

4. In the result, the application is rejected. The rule is discharged. I, however, leave the parties to bear their own Costs.

Revision dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1977 Supreme(Gau) 13

GAUHATI HIGH COURTBAHARUL ISLAM, J.Thoudam Ningol Ningthoujam Ongbi Muktarei Devi -AppellantVersusState of Manipur and others -RespondentCivil Revn. No. 5 of 1974Decided On : 04-04-1977

The mandatory nature of the notice requirement under S. 80, C. P. C. and the inapplicability of an application under S. 115, C. P. C. when an appeal is provided under S. 96 of the Code.

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
BAHARUL ISLAM, J.
Thoudam Ningol Ningthoujam Ongbi Muktarei Devi -Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and others -Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 5 of 1974
Decided On : 04-04-1977