Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Nepal Ch. Das, S/o. Lt. Bishwanath Das - Petitioner
Versus
Kanailal Das, S/o. Late Kancharan Das & Ors. - Respondents
CRP(IO) No. 66 of 2019
Decided On : 28-04-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order 1 - Rule 10 (2) - Section 80 - Order – Application – Challenged - Petitioner filed the said suit and during pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure praying for impleading State of Assam represented by Deputy Collector –Held, On a plain reading of provision of law as laid down under Section 80 of CPC, it is clear that whenever a suit is to be filed against a public officer, in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered or left at office of such officer - No notice under Section 80 of CPC was issued before filing of suit - During pendency of suit, the provision of law as laid down under Section 80 of CPC cannot be complied with - Revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri in Title Suit No.58/2016.
3. The factual matrix lies within a very short campus. The petitioner filed the said suit and during pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for impleading the State of Assam represented by the Deputy Collector.
4. The learned court below rejected the prayer on the ground that before filing of the suit, notice under Section 80 of the CPC was not complied with.
5. Mr. Ahmed submits that during pendency of the suit, in order to implead the State of Assam as party, the petitioner/plaintiff issued a notice and accordingly complied with the provision of law as laid down under Section 80 of the CPC.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.
7. On a plain reading of the provision of law as laid down under Section 80 of the CPC, it is clear that whenever a suit is to be filed against a public officer, in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of such officer.
8. So, the law postulates that whenever a person intends to file a suit against a Government official or the Government itself, in that case, a notice has to be issued and after expiry of two months after delivery of such notice, the suit can be filed. In the case in hand, the suit is already pending. No notice under Section 80 of the CPC was issued before filing of the suit. During pendency of the suit, the provision of law as laid down under Section 80 of the CPC cannot be complied with.
9. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly dismissed the application of the present petitioner.
10. The Revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.
SupremeToday
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....
A suit filed against a public officer for acts done during the performance of official duties requires mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the plaintiff claims t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with Section 80 of CPC and the admission of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC are subject to the Court's discretion....
The court ruled that procedural non-compliance objections must be raised by parties with direct interest, and premature dismissals without full party notifications are improper.
The Rajya Sabha Secretariat is not a government body under the Civil Procedure Code, thus no notice under Section 80 was necessary for the appellant's suit.
The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of procedural law, especially regarding notice requirements under S.80 CPC, to ensure just claims are not dismissed on technical grounds.
Rejection of plaint -Threat of dispossession – Dispensing with prior notice - provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code not applicable where the plaint is returned under the Proviso to Section 80(2....
Suit for declaration - Return of plaint - Remedy of appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of Code it is applicable where the plaint is returned under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of Code - Provision....
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
