SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Gau) 13

BAHARUL ISLAM
Thoudam Ningol Ningthoujam Ongbi Muktarei Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.B. Paul, Th. Munindrakumar Singh

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 c



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top