JUDGMENT :

1. It is pertaining to rejection of leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C. by the trial court finding that there is no necessity for any urgent relief in the suit matter. The order passed by the trial court appears to be untenable. There is failure on the part of the trial court to understand the real spirit under Section 80 C.P.C. and the sub-section thereto, viz., sub-section(2). The requirement to be complied with under Section 80(1) C.P.C. to bring up a suit against the Government or any public officer in respect of any act to be done in his official capacity by issuing two months notice in writing is basically a precautionary measure, subject to the application of sub-section (2), by which an exemption was carved out so as to bring up a suit when it is necessary to obtain an “urgent and immediate relief” and a suit can be brought up without serving two months notice as required by sub-section(1), but with leave of court. The proviso to sub-section (2) says that the court, if it is satisfied after hearing the parties that no urgent and immediate relief need be granted can return the plaint for presentation in compliance with the requirement under sub-section (1) by giving