The main legal point established in the judgment is that even if the Commissioner is a corporation sole, a notice under section 80, C.P.C. is still necessary, and the notice issued must satisfy the requirements of the law.

C.A. Vaidialingam, J.

1. In this Civil Revision, Petition, on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner, Mr. M. K. Narayana Menon, learned counsel challenges the decrees of the two subordinate courts dismissing the suit filed by. His client O.S. 324/57; on the ground that no proper notice as contemplated in section 80, C.P.C. has been issued.

2. The plaintiff had instituted the suit S.C.S -298/55 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottapalam, against one C. Narayanan Nair who was the then Executive (Officer of the Chelakat Devaswom. in that suit the plaintiff had also attached certain amounts, which, according to her, were due from the Department concerned, representing a sum, of Rs. 500 as security deposit and a sum of Rs. 180 payable to the said officer as arrears of' salary. Those amounts had been attached before judgment in S.C.S. 298/55. The plaintiff was appointed Receiver on 7th June 1957 for realising those amounts; and for that purpose she instituted the present suit, O.S. 324/57 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Perinthalmanna, for recovery of the said amounts. The present suit was instituted against the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department, Palghat. Later on, it is seen that the 2nd defendant, namely the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Administration) Department, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, was impleaded as additional 2nd defendant. There are also two other supplemental defendants, namely the then Executive Officer of Chelakkat Devaswom, who has now vanished out of the picture, and the present 3rd defendant who is the Uralan and Manager of the Chelakkat Devaswom.

3. The present suit O.S. 324/57, as already indicated, was for recovery of amounts from the H.R. and C.E. Department, and which, according to the plaintiff, are due from the department to the said Executive Officer C. Narayanan,Nair, against whom, the decree in. Small Cause Suit No. 298/55 had been obtained by the plaintiff. The 1st defendant in his written statement contended that the suit as framed is not maintainable and that it should have been instituted against the State of Kerala represented by the Collector of Palghat, or against the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Administration) Department. There was a further contention taken by him that notice under section 80, C.P.C., has not been issued to the proper per- son. Then various., other defences on merits have also been raised in the written statement of, the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant was impleaded party, on an application filed by the plaintiff on 4th June 1958, I.A. No 571/58. The suit itself was instituted on 30th November 1957. The 2nd defendant raised a contention that no notice under section 80, C.P.C has been sent to him, and therefore the suit is not maintainable. There are various other defences also raised by him in the written statement, on the merits of the plaintiff's claim.

4. Both the Subordinate courts, it must be stated, have over-ruled the various objections raised by the defendants on merits, and on those aspects the findings are in Department, favour of the plaintiff. But in respect of the plea raised by the 2nd defendant particularly, that no proper notice has been issued under section 80 of the Code, the view of the subordinate courts is that the said contention will have to be accepted. Though the plaintiff has relied on the issue of the suit notice Ex. A-2 dated 22nd August 1957 addressed to the 1st defendant, it was urged that a copy of the said notice had been sent to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, and that the Commissioner himself has sent a reply Ex. A-6 dated 11th December 1957 to the plaintiff, rebutting her claim. On the basis of Exts.A-2 and A-6 the plaintiff urged that there was proper notice issued to the 2nd defendant also and therefore the plea raised on behalf of the defendants should not be accepted. On this aspect the view of both the sub?rdinate courts appears to be that Ex. A-2 cannot be considered to be a suit notice issued