The main legal point established in the judgment is that technical objections diverting the normal course of a trial should be frowned upon, especially when raised without substantial grounds on the merits. The judgment emphasized the need to construe S.80 with regard to common-sense and the object for which it was passed, highlighting the principle that any unimportant error or defect in the notice should not be treated as an excuse for defeating a just claim.

1. Had there been an Indian Ombudsman, the technical defence raised by the Railway in this suit might well have come under his censorious attention. The plea put forward by the defendant, the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, in answer to a suit for damages on account of the damaged condition of certain bags of lime carried by the Railway, was, interalia, that the suit was had for want of valid notice under S.80, CPC. If I may anticipate my conclusion at this stage, the contention is not merely untenable but unjust and is calculated only to protract the litigation and to postpone the facing of a trial on the merits and, perhaps, to tire out the private party, the plaintiff, whose resources are certainly very limited. In the present case, a notice had been sent purporting to be under S.80, CPC., before the action was instituted. The advocate, who issued the notice for the plaintiff, described his client as "Kozhikode Lime Centre, Lime Fruits, Vegetable Merchants and Commission Agents, M.V. Market, Calicut-2." The same advocate later described the plaintiff in the plaint as "Kozhikode Lime Centre by pro-pritor, P.P. Abubacker". In the plaint it was stated that the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Trichinopolly, had been earlier intimated about the damage to the bags of lime, but no action was taken by him to award compensation. It is also seen that the Chief Commercial Superintendent had directed the plaintiff to produce the "pattiyas" in respect of the consignments concerned and that the goods had been sold in public auction presumably after notice to the plaintiff There is also a definite averment in Para.8 of the plaint that "the plaintiff had sent a notice to the defendant" claiming damages for the loss sustained by him under S.80, CPC. The defendant apart from a general denial of everything in the plaint which had not been expressly admitted, adverted to the notice under S.80 in Para.9 of the written statement and averred that "the plaintiff is put to strict proof of service of valid and legal notices under S.78B, Indian Railways Act, and S.80, CPC. It is fairly obvious that the defendant had merely required formal proof of service of the notices and did not challenge the validity thereof or indicate that there was any difference in the identity of the person who sent the notice and the one who brought the suit. Moreover, the earlier exchanges between the plaintiff and the Chief Commercial Superintendent also clearly lead to the conclusion that the Railway was dealing with a specific entity and had no doubts about the identity of the entity whose goods were alleged to have been damaged and which goods they had auctioned. Aside from this aspect, there is, in law, no plea of denial of the notice under S.80 or its validity and, therefore, no question relating to the sustainability of the action on account of non-compliance with S.80 really arises. In a decision reported in Abubacker v Abdulrahiman Beary (1960 KLT. 348) a Division Beach of this Court explained a plea couched in similar words as not amounting to one of denial. There also the defendants had put the plaintiffs to 'strict proof of the right which they claimed and their Lordships observed: "These statements cannot be taken as a specific denial of the material allegation in the plaint. Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure requires denial of allegations in the plaint to be specific. Where a defendant simply'puts the plaintiff to proof of the several allegations in the plaint, he will be deemed to have admitted the facts alleged in the plaint' (see Mulla's Civil Procedure Code, 12th Edition, p. 624). In the absence of a specific denial the appellants cannot be permitted to raise this contention." It is thus plain that no contention turning on the validity of the notice under S.80, CPC is available to be canvassed, going by the rules of pleading. Counsel for the respondent, however, stated that an issue had bee