A notice under Section 80 of the CPC should be read as a whole and given a reasonable interpretation. It should not be scrutinised in a pedantic manner completely divorced from common sense. It should be held to be valid if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 80, C.P.C.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,715/- by way of compensation on account of damage caused to his vehicle while it was under requisition with the officers of the Government of Assam for election duty. In the suit, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was named as defendant No. 1, besides the Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Divisional Officer (Election Branch), Barpeta who requisitioned the vehicle, the Chief Election Officer, Assam, the Election Officer, Barpeta for whose duty it was requisitioned and the New India Assurance Company Limited with whom the vehicle was insured. They were made defendants Nos. 2 to 5. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff through his Advocate served a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam and other defendants.

2. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in their written statement pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and for non-compliance of the requirement under Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was claimed by the defendants that the vehicle at the time of the accident was under the possession of plaintiff through his employees and not with the Government and that the alleged damage was caused due to wrongful acts and rash and negligent driving of his employees and, as such, the defendants were not liable to pay any compensation. The trial Court framed as many as 15 issues. Issues Nos. 2 and 3, which related to maintainability of the suit and are relevant for the decision of the present case are reproduced below:-

"(2) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and for noncompliance of requirement u/s. 79, C.P.C.

(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party". .

Regarding compensation, the relevant issue was issue No. 13 which reads as follows:-

"(13) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for Rs. 25,715.00 against the defendants jointly and severally?"

3. On facts, the learned trial Court held that the vehicle was under custody of the defendants officers when it met with the accident. However, while deciding issue No. 13, it did not decide the quantum of compensation as it was of the opinion that the suit was bad for want of valid notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and for non-compliance of the requirement of Section 79, C.P.C. According to the learned trial Court, the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were officers of the State of Assam and they were discharging their duties as public servants. The State of Assam was liable for the acts done by them and, as such, it was a necessary party. In the absence of the State of Assam, no effective decree could be passed. Accordingly, issues Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff and it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief against the defendants. The suit was, therefore, dismissed.

4. Against the said judgment, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was served duly on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam. In the suit, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was impleaded as defendant No. 1. The other officials of the State Government who were connected with the requisition and use of the vehicle were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 to 4. There was no non-compliance of requirements of Section 79 or 80, C.P.C.

5. Heard Mr. A.Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Miss Usha Barua, learned Government Advocate. Mr. Sarma submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the proper perspective. It misconstrued and misinterpreted Sections 79 and 80 of the C.P.C. It gave too technical a meaning to the requirement of the said sections and thereby arrived at an erroneous conclusion. According to Mr. Sarma, it is clear from the contents of the notice under Secti