Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.1.2012 passed by District Judge, Baghpat whereby objection with regard to defect in election petition on account of non-compliance of Section 80 C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Besides that election petition is not defective for non-compliance of Section 80 C.P.C., this Court is also of the view that such objection cannot be raised at the instance of a private party if State has not taken such an objection.

3. This issue has been considered by a Special Bench of this Court in Sunni Central Board of Waqfs v. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad and others, 2010 ADJ 1 (SFB) (LB) and in the judgment delivered by myself (concurred by Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J. on this issue), it has been said:

“622. Now we come to the second part of this issue i.e. 10 (b). The legislative intent of Section 80 is to give the Government sufficient notice of the suit which is proposed to be filed against it so that it may reconsider the decision and decide for itself whether the claim made could be accepted or not. The object of the section is advancement of justice and securing public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation (Bihari Chowdhary and another v. State of Bihar and others, 1984 (2) SCC 627; State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Pioneer Builders, AIR 2007 SC 113).

623. We, however, proceed to consider certain authorities cited on behalf of the defendant No. 10 to press upon their submission that in case of non-compliance of Section 80 C.P.C., it is the duty of the Court to reject the plaint outright even if no objection is raised by anyone since it is a jurisdictional issue.

624. Prior to Section 80 C.P.C., 1908, similar provision existed in Section 424 of C.P.C., 1882. Considering the purpose and objective of such a provision, in Secretary of State for India In Council v. Perumal Pillai and others, (1900) ILR 24 (Mad.) 271, it was held:

“... object of the notice required by section 424, Civil Procedure Code, is to give the defendant an opportunity of settling the claim, if so advised, without litigation.”

625. With reference to Section 80 C.P.C. of 1908, the objective and purpose came to be considered in Secretary of State for India In Council v. Gulam Rasul Gyasudin Kuwari, (1916) ILR XL (Bom.) 392, wherein it was held as under :

“... the object of section 80 is to enable the Secretary of State, who necessarily acts usually through agents, time and opportunity to reconsider his legal position when that position is challenged by persons alleging that some official order has been illegally made to their prejudice.”

626. In Raghunath Das v. Union of India and another, AIR 1969 SC 674, in para 8, the Court said :

“8. The object of the notice contemplated by that section is to give to the concerned Governments and public officers opportunity to reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised without litigation. The legislative intention behind that section in our opinion is that public money and time should not be wasted on unnecessary litigation and the Government and the public officers should be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the claim made against them lest they should be drawn into avoidable litigations. The purpose of law is advancement of justice. The provisions in Section 80, Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used as boobytraps against ignorant and illiterate persons.”

627. The object and purpose of enactment of Section 80 C.P.C. was also noticed in State of Punjab v. M/s. Geeta Iron and Brass Works Ltd., AIR 1978 SC 1608, as under :

“A statutory notice of the proposed action under Section 80 C.P.C. is intended to alert the State to negotiate a just settlement or at least have the Courtesy to tell the potential outsider why the claim is being resisted.”

628. The requirement of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has also been held mandatory. In Bhagchand Dagaduss v. Secretary of State for India in Council, AI