Point of Law: When a suit is filed against public officer without any relief being claimed, no notice shall be required and even if the public officers are made as proforma defendants but relief is claimed, notice under Section 80 shall be required.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. BK Das, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned court below of Munisiff, Charaideo at Sonari in TS No. 10/2022 whereby the application of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint was refused.

3. The brief fact leading to the filing of the present application can be summarized as follows:

I. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and confirmation of possession and for temporary and permanent injunction.

II. The basic case pleaded by the plaintiff is that a plot of land measuring 30 Bighas of ceiling sarkari land covered by Dag No. 28 of Lengibor grant village under Dhupabor Mouza of Nazira Revenue Circle was settled with the plaintiff by the proforma defendant No. 19 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Charaideo, Assam on payment of premium for the purpose of cultivation of tea.

III. The further case of the plaintiff is that without any just cause and reason, the defendant Nos. 1 to 17 on 18.02.2022 tried to illegally trespass into the suit land and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from his land.

IV. Accordingly, the suit was filed with the following prayer:

“i. Declaring the right, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land i.e. schedule land;

ii. Declaring the plaintiff is in exclusive possession over the suit land which is also confirmed in Government documents;

iii. Declaring all the acts done by the defendants against the plaintiff for forcefully trying to grab the suit land as illegal;

iv. Declaring that if any construction already being constructed before filing of the suit and during the pendency of the suit by the defendants or anybody else over the schedule land of the plaintiff shall be treated as illegal and shall be demolished as such;

v. Grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendants or anybody else acting for and on behalf of the defendants from entering into the suit land or any of its parts and make any permanent construction over it till disposal of the main suit;

vi. Grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody else acting for and on behalf of the defendants to enter into the suit land and disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff therefrom in future;

vii. Cost of the suit may be granted in favour of the plaintiff;

viii. Any other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;”

4. In the suit, the plaintiff had arrayed the Circle Officer, Nazira Revenue Circle as proforma defendant No. 18 and the Deputy Commissioner, Charaideo as proforma defendant No. 19. However, no statement claiming anything against the said two proforma defendants were made in the present petition. The basic grievance of the plaintiff was that the petitioner is sought to be dispossessed from the suit land by the defendant Nos. 1 to 17 which was settled with the plaintiff by the proforma defendant No. 19.

5. The present petitioners as defendants filed written statement in the suit touching the merit of the claim as well as raising question of non-adherence of Section 80 of the CPC before filing the suit. Subsequently, the present petitioners had preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred for non-adherence of the provision of Section 80 CPC. The learned court below by way of the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 rejected such claim of the plaintiff.

6. The reason for rejection by the learned trial court below can be summarized as follows:

I. After perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court below came to a conclusion that no relief is claimed as against the proforma defendant, who are public officers and the plaintiff has not disputed or challenged the validity or legality of any order or the decision of the revenue authority.

II. Rather the suit was filed for declaration of right, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and the s