A suit may be maintainable against a defendant even though it has been dismissed against other defendants, provided that the suit is not bad for want of necessary parties.

I. N. MODI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Civil regular first appeal by Mst. Chandni, widow of Hiralal plaintiff, against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Balotra, dated the 23rd december, 1954, dismissing the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff Hiralal thed after the decision of the suit by the trial court and before the present appeal was filed, and so this appeal was preferred by the present appellant, being his sole representative.

( 2 ) IT is common ground between the parties that the plaintiff Hiralal worked as a retail cheap grain shop agent of the State for the Guda Chohtan area from the 16th June, 1949 to the 18th August, 1949. One Balchand Geimal was the wholesale distributor of grain for this area at the relevant time. The plaintiff was caught having sold some 18 bags of grain in black-market, and for this it appears that he was subjected to a fine of Rs. 1500/ -. The case of the plaintiff is that at that time there were some 221 bags of grain in his godown (with which alone we are concerned in this appeal), and a chepa was put on it by defendant No. 3 Faujraj, a famine clerk in the office of the Tehsildar, under the orders of defendant No. 2, radhakishen, the Tehsildar, on the 18th August, 1949, and eventually these goods were removed from his godown in his absence on the 12th and 13th September, 1949. According to the plaintiff, the total amount of grain in these bags weighed 551 maunds and 8 seers and the price thereof in accordance with the controlled rate of rs. 13/5/4 per maund amounted to Rs. 7349/2/9. The plaintiffs case further was that, apart from the afore-mentioned bags, four bags of gram weighing 11 maunds and 12 1/2 seers were also removed by the order of the Tehsildar and the price thereof was Rs. 150/13/3, but this part of the plaintiffs case was not sought to be pressed before me, and, therefore, I shall say nothing more about this. Thus the plaintiffs claim is for a total sum of Rs. 7349/2/9 plus Rs. 150/13/3 equal to rs. 7500/ -. To this, he added a. sum of Rs. 1300/-by way of interest from the date of actual removal of the bags namely the 12th. and 13th September, 1949, upto the date of suit, namely, the 12th September, 1952. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff alleges to have given a notice to the Collector, barmer, on behalf of the State on the 4th June, 1951, under Section 80 C. P. C. but without any result. It may be mentioned at this place that the plaintiff. did not give any separate notices to defendants Nos. 2. and 3 Radhakishen and Faujraj respectively, Eventually he filed the present suit in the court of the District Judge, balotra, on the 1. 2th September, 1952, claiming a sum of Rs. 8800/- against the defendant State and in the alternative against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 radhakishen and Faujraj. This suit was transferred for trial, by the District Judge to the Civil Judge, Balotra. On an objection having been raised, on behalf of the defendants Radhakishen and faujraj that the suit against them was not maintainable as no notices had been given to them under Section 80 C. P. C. the trial Judge held that as both these defendants were being sued for certain acts done by them in their official capacity and as the contention raised by them that no notice had been given to them under section 80 was correct, the suit could not proceed against them and he therefore reflected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. C. so far as these defendants were concerned. Thereafter the suit proceeded only against defendant No. 1 the States

( 3 ) THE State resisted the suit. Unfortunately, however, the written statement filed on behalf of the State is a highly vague and an extremely unsatisfactory piece of pleading with the result that not more is sought to be read into it by the learned. Assistant Government Advocate, who has appeared before me on its behalf, than what can be legitimately read into it. Be that as it may, its main defence is contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the written statemen