Advocates Appeared:
Ajay Sharma, Adv., Devender K Sharma, Adv., Sunny Moudgil, Adv., Desh Raj Thakur, Adv., Kamal Kant, Adv., Rajat Chauhan, Adv.

Key Points: - The impugned order was quashed and set aside; trial court directed to decide afresh the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC after complying with Section 80 CPC. (!) - If cause of action accrues during pendency, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the State can be filed and must be adjudicated on merit after Section 80 compliance. (!) (!) (!) - Section 80 CPC requires two months’ notice before instituting suit against the Government or public officer; failure to serve notice generally leads to dismissal, but not when cause of action accrues during pendency. (!) (!) - The purpose of Section 80 notice is to provide Government an opportunity to reconsider and avoid litigation; not a mere formality. (!) - The judgment clarifies that notice under Section 80 is not required if there was no cause of action to implead the State at the time of filing the suit, but may be required when cause accrues later. (!) (!)

What is the proper procedure for impleading the State as a party defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC when a cause of action accrues during the pendency of a suit?

What is the role and mandatory effect of Section 80 CPC notice in the context of impleadment during pendency of a suit?

What are the grounds on which a trial court’s order denying impleadment can be quashed and the application for impleadment remitted for merit-based adjudication?