Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A.C. Behera, J.
Utkal University - Appellant
Versus
Md. Wazid Hussain & Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 196 of 2002 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
Decided On : 20-05-2024
CIVIL LIABILITY - DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION - C.P.C. 80 - The court discussed Section 80 of the C.P.C., which requires a notice to be served to public officers before a suit can be filed against them. The court interpreted that the defendants, including Utkal University, waived their right to challenge the maintainability of the suit due to non-service of notice, as they did not raise this objection during the trial. The court emphasized the importance of the notice in allowing public officers to reconsider claims and avoid litigation. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to uphold the lower court's ruling, confirming the defendants' liability for damages due to negligence in handling the plaintiff's examination results.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a student at B.J.B. College, was allowed to sit for his Intermediate Commerce examination but faced issues when his result was withheld due to a correction in his roll number made by the college's principal. After multiple attempts to resolve the issue with the defendants, including the university, the plaintiff filed a suit for damages claiming loss of academic career and harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding the defendants liable for negligence in the handling of his examination results, which led to the withholding of his result and subsequent loss of a year in his academic career. The appellate court confirmed this finding, particularly against Utkal University, which was deemed solely responsible for the delay.
Issues: 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action to bring the suit? 3. Are the defendants liable to pay compensation for their negligence? 4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants, including Utkal University, waived their right to challenge the maintainability of the suit due to non-service of notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. since they did not raise this issue during the trial. The court emphasized that the purpose of the notice is to allow public officers to reconsider claims and avoid unnecessary litigation, which was not adhered to in this case.
Final Decision: The 2nd appeal filed by Utkal University was dismissed, confirming the lower court's judgment and decree that ordered the university to pay Rs. 52,200/- in damages to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
A.C. Behera, J.
This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.
2. The appellant of this 2nd appeal was the defendant no.5 before the trial court in the suit vide M.S. No.34 of 1985 and the appellant was also the appellant before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide M.A. No.01 of 1998.
3. The respondent no.1 of this 2nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide M.S. No.34 of 1985 and he was the respondent no.1 before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide M.A. No.01 of 1998.
The respondent nos.2, 3 4 and 5 of this 2nd appeal were the defendant nos.1 to 4 before the trial court in the suit vide M.S. No.34 of 1985 and they were the respondent nos.2 to 5 before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide M.A. No.01 of 1998.
4. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent no.1 in this 2nd appeal) before the trial court vide M.S. No.34 of 1985 was a suit for damages and compensation.
5. The case of the plaintiff (respondent no.1 in this 2nd appeal) against the defendants (appellant and respondent nos.2 to 5 in this 2nd appeal) before the trial court in M.S. No.34 of 1985 was that, he (plaintiff) was a regular student of Intermediate Commerce in B.J.B. College, Bhubaneswar in the year 1981-82. In order to appear annual examination of Intermediate in Commerce, he (plaintiff) filled up the form. The said duly filled up form of the plaintiff was accepted by the defendants and he was allowed to appear annual examination 1982 as a regular student in the center of that B.J.B. College, Bhubaneswar. Some days before examination, the plaintiff was issued with a duly signed Admit Card indicating his Roll number as 308P065 and his Registration number as 27967. The date of starting his annual examination was on 03.03.1982. Accordingly, on that day, i.e., on 03.03.1982, the plaintiff came to the examination center at B.J.B. College, but could not find his Roll number in any seat, when he (plaintiff) did not find his Roll number in any seat, he (plaintiff) came to the defendant no.2(Principal, B.J.B., College) for making necessary arrangements in order to allow him to appear examination and after discussion between the defendant nos.1 and 2, the defendant no.1 (Clerk of the B.J.B. College) corrected his Roll Number in the Admit Card from 308P065 to 308P135 and also put his initial therein and allotted a seat to the plaintiff to appear the annual examination. Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared the annual examination indicating his corrected Roll number, i.e. 308P135 and the invigilator also signed in his all answer sheets in each date of his examination. After completion of the examination, the result of the examination for Intermediate of Commerce was published by the Utkal University (defendant no.5) on 07.06.1982, but, his result was withheld by the Utkal University (defendant no.5). For which, the plaintiff was shocked and surprised. Thereafter, he(plaintiff) approached the defendants for publication of his withheld result and came to know that, due to the correction of his Roll number in his Admit Card by the defendant no.2, his result has been withheld and unless the defendant no.2(Principal, B.J.B. college) gives an explanation to the controller of the University (defendant no.3) assigning the reasons of such correction of his roll number in the Admit Card, the university (defendant no.5) shall not publish his result. Thereafter, he(plaintiff) approached the defendant nos.1 to 4 time and again for publication his result assigning the aforesaid reasons of correction of his Roll number in his Admit Card, but, the defendant nos.1 to 4 did not pay any heed to the same. Then, ultimately, he (plaintiff) approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by filing a writ petition vide O.J.C. No.3229 of 1982 for publication of his withheld result by the University directing the Utkal University (defendant no.5) for the same. But, after receiving the notice of O.J.C. No.3229 of 1982, the defe
The court established that failure to raise an objection regarding the non-service of notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. during the trial results in a waiver of that right, thus maintaining the su....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with Section 80 of CPC and the admission of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC are subject to the Court's discretion....
Disciplinary dismissals without a reasonable chance to contest charges violate principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void.
An administrative order is only effective when communicated to the affected party, and failure to provide a fair hearing or necessary materials constitutes a violation of natural justice.
Defendants cannot be held liable for consequences of consequences.
Non-service of statutory notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. is waivable if no objection is raised in the defendants' written statement, allowing the suit to be maintained.
The Court clarified the conditions for maintaining a suit against the Government without notice under Section 80 CPC and interpreted the provisions of the section.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
