The court emphasized the necessity of prior notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for suits involving public officials, ruling that failure to comply renders the suit improperly instituted.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 80 and 115 - Civil revision against rejection of application for plaint rejection - Court found that suit naming public officials as defendants was maintainable without prior notice under Section 80 - Court emphasized the necessity of notice for public officials and the application of Order 7 Rule 11 to prevent frivolous suits - Court directed the lower court to return the plaint for compliance with notice requirements. (Paras 2, 5, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to challenge the rejection of their application to dismiss a civil suit filed by respondents against public officials and private individuals for removal of illegal construction. The suit was allowed to proceed without notice under Section 80.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the lower court failed to consider the necessity of notice under Section 80 and directed the plaint to be returned for compliance.

Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was maintainable without prior notice to public officials as required under Section 80.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of notice under Section 80 rendered the suit improperly instituted, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in civil suits.

Result: The plaint is to be returned for compliance with notice requirements.

ORDER :

01. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and also the record summoned from the court below.

02. Through the medium of this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the three petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court to examine the legality and validity of an order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the court of Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Poonch, whereby an application filed by the petitioners, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint has come to be rejected.

03. The civil suit, of which the rejection was sought by the petitioners, has been filed by the three respondents herein. In the said suit, the three respondents came to name as many as 16 defendants of which defendants No. 1 to 9 are Public/Govt. Officials and from the defendants 10 to 16 are the private individuals of which the present petitioners are defendants No. 10, 12 & 16.

04. In the civil suit, the three respondents have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“Decree for Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to remove the illegal construction of 14 shops situated at village Samote measuring 01 kanals 02 marlas falling under survey No. 488 with further relief directing the defendants to vacate the piece of land by removing debris and handover the possession of the property to plaintiff, further directing the defendants No. 1 to 9 not to allow any further construction by the defendants No. 10 to 16.”

05. Whether the suit filed by the respondents was liable to suffer rejection through the medium of the application filed by the petitioners herein as the defendants No. 10, 12 & 16 is a secondary question. The question which, at the first instance, ought to have self confronted the civil court on its own cognizance and understanding is as to whether the suit which names the public officials/servants as defendants No. 1 to 9 and against whom the relief is being equally sought as against the private defendants, is maintainable for want of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

06. The court of Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Poonch by virtue of an ex-parte order dated 06.12.2016 came to grant leave for the institution of the suit without service of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without undertaking evaluation of the facts and circumstances as to how a case for dispensing with prior notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was made out by reference to any purported urgency when the suit was for mandatory injunction for seeking removal of 14 shops from the suit site, meaning thereby that there was no pressing situation in hand at the end of the respondents, herein as plaintiffs in the civil suit, to rush for institution of the civil suit without first putting the defendants No. 1 to 9 on a prior notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 calling upon them that they need to remove 14 shops from the suit site as desired by the plaintiffs within two months’ notice period.

07. This suit has been allowed to have a run on the court file from 2016 onwards without Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Poonch sparing its consideration to the provisions of section 80(2) which mandates that if satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit then to return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section(1).

08. Mandate of Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is meant to check filing of frivolous/misconceived suits by a litigant at the cost of time and energy of the civil courts which is otherwise meant to be spared for civil suits having genuine causes of action and long waiting for adjudication on the docket of a given civil court. Notwithstanding the fact that the application filed by the petitioners herein as defendants 10, 12 & 16 was rejected by the learned Sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document