Fulfillment of conditions for the validity of notice under Section 80 CPC and the presumption of service supported by postal receipts are crucial in determining the maintainability of a suit.

R.L. Anand, J. - With the assistance of the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment dated 31.3.1997. The plaintiff was non- suited by the trial Court mainly on the ground that he did not serve a valid notice under Section 80, CPC. This finding was set aside by the first Appellate Court, for the reasons given in paras 8 to 15 of its judgment, which read as under :-

"8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and record available on the file.

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings of the learned trial Court on issues 3 and 4 are liable to be set aside because the plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint that he served the defendants with notice under Section 80 CPC before filing the present suit. Para No. 5 of the plaint is to this effect. It is also argued that even the copy of the said notice served upon the defendants-respondent under Section 80 CPC was attached along with the plaint and the postal receipts were also filed. The copy of the notice is Ex.P-2 whereas the postal receipts are Ex.P3 and P4. It is thus argued that from these documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 it is evident that the notice under Section 80 CPC was served and the suit was filed after the service of notice. The notice was served on 4.12.1986 and the suit was filed on 27.10.1987. So it cannot be said that the suit is bad for non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC or that the suit is not maintainable in the present form. It is argued that onus of issues 3 and 4 was no the defendants-respondents, but no evidence has been led by the defendants- respondents on both these issues. So the findings of the learned trial Court are erroneous and against the evidence available on the file.

10. On the other hand learned G.P. has argued that the findings of the learned trial Court are legal and valid and are not liable to be set aside. The defendants have denied the service of the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. So the findings of the learned lower court that no notice under Section 80 CPC was served are sustainable.

11. At the very outset it may be said that no cross-examination or cross- appeal was filed by the State challenging the findings of the learned trial Court on issues No. 1.

12. Admittedly the notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendants before filing the present suit. Copy of the notice is Ex.P2 and the postal receipts are Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. The claim of the defendants is that no date of notice was pleaded in the plaint. So the service of notice under Section 80 CPC is denied as is evident from para 2 of the preliminary objection of the written statement. No one has appeared on behalf of the defendant to say that no notice was served upon the defendants before filing the present suit. The receipt registers of the defendants have also not been produced during the evidence to show that no such notice was served upon the defendants. It has not been stated by any body that Ex.P2 was not received by the defendants. The requirement of section 80 CPC is that the notice should contain the address of the defendants and the relief claimed therein and the particulars of the plaintiff. All these conditions are fulfilled as is evident from copy of notice Ex.P2.

13. Moreover, while appearing as PW-1 the plaintiff-appellant has specifically stated that he served notice under Section 80 CPC, copy of which is Ex.P2 and postal receipts are Ex.P3 and P4 but he has not been cross- examined by the defendants on this point. So it is a settled law that if no cross-examination is done of a witness on a particular point of examination-in-chief then it amounts that the other party accepted that point. The authority on the point is reported as 1977 Current Law Journal 259 Harbans Lal v. Bhim Sain etc.

14. The learned trial Court has relied upon AIR 1984 S.C. 1043, Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, but the said authority is not applicable to