The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 48 of the Co-operative Societies Act in determining the maintainability of the suits.

Pandrang Row, J.

1. These are appeals from the decree in two connected suits O.S. Nos. 1 and 12 of 1935, on the file of the District Court of Chingleput. The plaintiff was the same in both the suits and the defendant also was the same. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendant who is the respondent in these appeals, was described as the Uttukottai Co-operative Society by its Liquidator. The suits were for a declaration that certain orders made in 1933 and 1932 by the Liquidator of the Co-operative Credit Society in question determining the contribution payable by the plaintiff in the suits at Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 2,000 respectively were illegal and void and of no effect whatever as against the plaintiff. The suits were resisted on various grounds and they were tried together and disposed of in one and the same Judgment by the District Judge. It is an unfortunate feature that in this case judgment was pronounced by the Court below more than a year after case had been closed.

2. On all the points except one, the findings of the Court below were in favour of the plaintiff. But the suits were dismissed, though without costs, on the sole ground that no notice had been given as required by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In other words, it was only on the ground of want of notice that the suits were found to be not maintainable, and in other respects the findings were in favour of the plaintiff. The only point therefore argued in these appeals in the first instance, so to say, on behalf of the appellant is that the finding of the lower Court on the question of notice is wrong. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that unless notice is given at least two months before the suit, no suit can be instituted against the crown or against any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by him in his official capacity. In this case no notice whatever was given, and the contention on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is that no notice is required because the defendant in the suit is not a public officer as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure [vide Section 2 (17)]. It has been contended that even assuming that the defendant in the suit is the liquidator and not the society, he cannot be regarded as a public officer within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection perhaps it is desirable first to deal with two applications presented at a very late stage, namely, after the hearing of the appeal was over and just before judgment was to be delivered, one application in each appeal to amend the cause title so as to show the defendant as "the Liquidator of the Society" instead of "the Society by its Liquidator." It is enough to say as regards the oral application for permission to withdraw the suits, that it is not withdrawn, and there is no need to pass any other order on it except to dismiss it as it is withdrawn. As regards the first application for amendment of the cause title of the plaint, it would be highly undesirable from every point of view to allow applications of this kind which are made after the whole case is argued and the parties have an opportunity of knowing or at least guessing with some degree of accuracy what is going to happen to their case. It is not as if this objection to the maintainability of the suit in view of Section 48 of the Co-operative Societies Act was not raised in the trial Court, and the application to amend the cause title should have been put in much earlier. There is really no explanation forthcoming for the delay in making the present application. We are therefore not prepared to allow that application and it is accordingly dismissed. We may add, however, that the application to amend is absolutely contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, where it is contended that the defendant in the suit was the Co-operative Society and not the liquidator and therefore the question of notice did not arise at all. In other words, the mai