A notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is valid if it informs the defendant of the nature of the suit intended to be filed and the relief sought to be claimed, even if the exact amount claimed is not specified.

G.L.Chopra, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Sub-Judge, Karnal, dismissing the plaintiff-appellants suit for recovery of Rs. 5,713/13/-, based on the following facts.

2. Braham Dutt was the owner of a Vauxhal car registered in his name at No. PBE 325. In September, 1947, he had lent the car temporarily to Iqbal Ahmad Khan, a resident of Shahbad, District Karnal. Shri Roshan Lal, defendant No. 2, was posted as the District Magistrate, and Mr. K.N. Sahni, defendant No. 3, as Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal, in those days. On 22nd September, 1947, defendant No. 3 took possession of the said car and removed it to the Police Station, Shahbad, falsely representing that the car had been requisitioned under orders of the District Magistrate defendant No. 2. The District Magistrate had no authority to requisition the car, nor was any notice of requisition served upon the plaintiff. The car was most carelessly used by defendants Nos. 2 and 3, till it was returned to the plaintiff on 7th May, 1948. At the time of delivery, the car was not only greatly damaged but a number of its parts were missing. The plaintiff thus claimed--

(i) Rs. 3,435/- as compensation for use of the car by the defendants at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day;

(ii) Rs. 1,700/- for the damage done to the car during-this period; and

(iii) RS. 578713/- as price of the missing parts. The State Government was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and the amount was claimed from defendant No. 1 in case it was found that the other two defendants acted in their official capacity and on behalf of and for the purposes of the Government.

3. The defendants, besides denying the allegations, raised a number of legal objections which gave rise to the following preliminary issues:-

-

1. Whether the plaintiff gave a notice under Section 80 of the C. P. C., and if so then is the notice valid?

2. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions-of law mentioned in the written statements?

3. Whether defendants 2 and 3 are protected under the provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act?

4. Whether the suit is in time?

The learned trial Judge decided issue no. 3 in favour of the plaintiff. As regards the other issues, he found that no valid notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was served upon the defendants that the suit Was barred under Sections 17 and 19 of the East Pun-jab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, XIV of 1947, and that the suit having been instituted more than three months after the alleged seizure of the car was barred by time under Article 2 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, he dismissed the suit but left the parties to bear their own costs. The plaintiff has now come in appeal.

4. Notice under Section 80 C. P. C., was given by the plaintiff to the three defendants on 27-1-1948, i.e., some months before the car Was delivered back to him. The notice recited the above facts regarding the seizure of the car and its unwarranted and careless use by defendants 2 and 3, and informed the defendants that the plaintiff would hold them responsible to pay compensation at the Tate of Rs. 30/- per day from 22-9-1947, till the car was returned. As regards the other claim put forth in the plaint the notice stated--

"In case my client discovers any accessories, spare parts, tools or other parts of the machinery removed or any other damage caused to the car, which defects my client is unable to discover at this stage, my client reserves his right to claim the damages for the same."

5. So far as the first item of the claim is concerned, the notice gives all the necessary particulars. The mere fact that it did not, and in fact it could not, give the exact amount claimed as compensation by the plaintiff is of no consequence. The object of the requirement of a notice under S: 80 C. P. C., is to afford the defendant an opportunity to reconsider his position with regard to the claim and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised, without recourse to t