JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. :- This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the learned sub Judge 1st class (1), Paonta Sahib, whereby an application of the petitioner plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) and proforma respondents No.2 and 3 - plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as the plaintiffs) under Section 80(2) of the Code for grant of leave to sue the respondent - defendant/State (hereafter referred to as the defendant) without prior service of notice under Section 80 of the Code has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs intended to institute a suit against the defendant for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the residential house of the plaintiffs or part thereof situate in Khasra .No.345/217/1 measuring 0-3 bighas situate in village Shubh Khera, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmaur, on the strength of an order of ejectment passed by the concerned Revenue Officer under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Apprehending that the house may be dismantled by the concerned Officers and the servants of the defendant with the assistance of the police immediately after 24.3.2001 when some officials had visited the spot with a view to demolish the house and eject the plaintiffs from the suit property, plaintiffs moved an application on 31.3.2001 under Section 80(2) of the Code for grant of permission to institute the suit without service of a notice under Section 80 of the Code on the defendant. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was also intended to be filed seeking interim relief of restraining the defendant from demolishing the house of the plaintiffs and from ejecting them therefrom.

3. The application was resisted by the defendant which filed a reply inter-alia asserting that the application is not maintainable and the suit sought to be filed has become time barred. On merits it was averred that the ejectment order sought to be executed against the defendant is a valid order and has become final.

4. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application and directed tat the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for complying with the provisions of Section 80 of the Code, hence, the present petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the records.

6. Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Code, which is an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 80, which bars the institution of the suit against the Government or against a public servant in respect of any act purporting to have been done by such public officer in his official capacity until the expiry of two months next after notice in writing has been served on them, reads as follows:- " A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including Ihe Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub section (1); but the court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit: Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub section (1)."

7. It is clear on a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that in a case where the plaintiff is to obtain an urgent and immediate relief against the Government or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to have been done by such pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document