Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.
M/s. En-geo Consultancy And Research Centre & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 15 of 2013
Decided On : 22-01-2020
Section 80 CPC - Maintainability of Suit - [Money Suit No.106/2007] - [Section 80 CPC] - The court discussed the mandatory provision of Section 80 CPC, emphasizing the need for serving notice to the government or public officer before instituting a suit. The court referred to the judgment in State of Madras Vs. CP Agencies, (1960) AIR SC 1309 and Dhian Singh Sobha Singh & Another vs The Union Of India, (1958) AIR SC 274 to interpret the purpose of Section 80 CPC and the consequences of non-compliance. The court concluded that the suit was not maintainable due to non-compliance with Section 80 CPC, leading to the dismissal of the suit. However, the appellate court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the dismissal based solely on non-service of notice to the Union of India was unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed Money Suit No.106/2007 for a decree amounting to Rs.19,61,124 under four different heads, including interest. The trial court found the suit not maintainable due to non-compliance with Section 80 CPC, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The appellate court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the suit not maintainable due to non-compliance with Section 80 CPC, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The appellate court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit based on non-compliance with Section 80 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 80 CPC, requiring notice to the government or public officer before instituting a suit. The court interpreted the purpose of Section 80 CPC and the consequences of non-compliance based on relevant judgments.
Final Decision: The appellate court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the dismissal based solely on non-service of notice to the Union of India was unsustainable.
JUDGMENT
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.C Keyal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appellants instituted Money Suit No.106/2007 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati for a decree amounting to a total of Rs.19,61,124/- under four different heads as stated in the prayer itself with a further decree for interest pendent life as well as future interest till realization of the claimed amount of Rs.19,61,124/-.
3. In course of the trial, the following issues were framed:-
wxyz
(1) Whether there is any cause of action of the suit land?
zyxw
wxyz
(2) Whether the suit is maintainable?
zyxw
wxyz
(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff ix bad for non-joinder of the Union of India as a principal defendant?
zyxw
wxyz
(4) Whether the plaintiff are entitled to any money is prayed for under the agreement dated 22/2/05?
zyxw
wxyz
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed in the suit?
zyxw
wxyz
(6) Whether the defendants are entitled to compensatory cost?
zyxw
wxyz
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
zyxw
wxyz
(8) What other relief/reliefs parties are entitled to get?
zyxw
4. The relevant facts for the purpose of the appeal is that initially the Money Suit was instituted against seven defendants, who are as follows:-
wxyz
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
zyxw
wxyz
2. The Chairman, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-781029
zyxw
wxyz
3. The Chief Engineer (I&W), Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-29
zyxw
wxyz
4. The Superintendent Engineer (I&W), Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-29
zyxw
wxyz
5. The Executive Engineer, North Guwahati Sub Division, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Rudreswar, Guwahati-781030
zyxw
wxyz
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer, NEHARI, North Guwahati Sub Division, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Rudreswar, Guwahati781030
zyxw
wxyz
7. The Financial Advisor, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-29
zyxw
5. It is specifically taken note of that the defendant No.1 is the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources Department. It is an admitted position of the parties that notice under Section 80 CPC had been issued to all the seven aforementioned defendants including the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Water Resources Department. In course of the trial proceedings, while adjudicating the Misc (J) Case No.189/2009 preferred by the plaintiffs for impleading the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Water Resources Department to be also a defendant, the order dated 21.08/2009 was passed and accordingly the impleadment was allowed and the plaintiffs were directed to add the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Water Resources Department as a defendant. Accordingly, an amended plaint was filed, wherein the array of parties stood such that the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Water Resources Department was arrayed as the defendant No.1 whereas the Secretary to the Government of India, Water Resources Department, who was originally the defendant No.1 stood arrayed as defendant No.1(A). The other defendants remained as it was. In the aforesaid factual background while deciding the issue No.1 on the question of maintainability of the suit, the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 15.12.2012 had arrived at its conclusion by following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1960 SC 1309 that the provision of Section 80 CPC requiring issuance of a prior notice to the State defendants is a mandatory provision a
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
