A plaint must disclose a cause of action, and notice under Section 80, C. P. C. is required in a suit against a public officer only if the suit is in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity.

P. C. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 13-4-1983 passed by the Munsif, Bhubaneswar, in M. S. No. 38 of 1983. The learned Munsif has, by the impugned order, refused to admit the aforesaid suit against defendant No. 4 and directed his name to be struck off the records, at the stage of admission of the plaint. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner in this revision challenges the legality of the said order in this revision.

( 2 ) THE petitioner as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit in the Court of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar, praying for a decree to be passed against the defendants jointly and severally for a token sum of Re. 1/ -. The plaintiff's case in the plaint, in short, is as follows : - (A) That the plaintiff is an Advocate who ordinarily carries on his profession at Bhubaneswar. (B) That the plaintiff wanted to book a suite in the Guest House of the Orissa State Electricity Board (impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 1) at Bhubaneswar for 28-10-1980 for one of his friends who was scheduled to come from Balasore with his wife and two minor children and stay at Bhubaneswar on the night of 28-10-1980 from where they were to go to Puri on the next day. (C) The plaintiff went to the Guest House for the aforesaid purpose and contacted the Assistant Care Taker of the Guest House for booking a suite for the night of 28-10-1980. The Assistant Care Taker after contacting his authorities over phone assured the plaintiff that he would get suite No. 2 of the said Guest House and took a deposit of Rs. 22/- as rental for 2 days at the rate of Rs. 11/- per day. According to the plaintiff, the Assistant Care Taker did not grant any receipt acknowledging the deposit of the aforesaid amount and made the plaintiff to understand that the receipt would be granted at the time when the suite is occupied. (D) The plaintiff's friend and his family members along with the plaintiff came to the Guest House during the night of 28/29-10-1980 for the purpose of occupying the aforesaid suite in the Guest House. At that time the Sub-divisional Officer, Revenue, Bhubaneswar, came with a lady and disclosed before an officer of the Guest House that the said lady was the guest of the Chief Minister. The S. D. O. who had accompanied the said lady had a talk to the Secretary of defendant No. 1 and the P. A. to the Chairman of defendant No. 1 over phone whereafter the suite No. 2 which was fixed to be occupied by the plaintiffs friend was opened to accommodate the said lady and the amount deposited earlier by the plaintiff was returned to him. The said lady has been impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit. (E) The plaintiff alleges that he had suffered inconvenience and humiliation due to the wilful breach of the promise to allot suite No. 2 or any other suite to him and he alleges that the State Electricity Board, the Sub-divisional officer, Major Buildings Sub-division, Orissa, the State Electricity Board and the Assistant Care Taker, Orissa State Electricity Board Guest House, (impleaded in the suit as defendants Nos. 1 to 3) had broken the promise at the instance of defendant No. 4, Shri J. B. Patnaik, who is the present Chief Minister of Orissa, and the said lady, namely, Smt. Sebarani Das, who as already stated, has been impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 4 has been impleaded in the suit in his individual capacity for which notice under S. 80, C. P. C. is not necessary. The plaintiff has confined his relief to Re. 1/- saying that the said amount is claimed as token damage.

( 3 ) THAT the plaint was presented on 12-4-1983 and the Court registered the suit on that very date. The suit was posted to next date, i. e. 13-4-1983, for office note and admission of the plaint. While admitting the plaint on 13-4-83, the learned Munsif found that notice under S. 80, C. P. C. should have been sent prior to the institution of the suit or at least the leave of the Court should have been taken