Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The only argument advanced is that ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. has been granted by Trial Court without deciding question of maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and Section 106 of Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and, therefore, impugned orders are patently illegal.

3. This issue has been considered by a Special Bench of this Court in Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Vs. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad and others, 2010 ADJ Page 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 Vs. State of Bihar and others 1984 (2) SCC 627 ; State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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 Vs. M/s. Geeta Iron and Brass Works Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 1608 as under :

"A statutory notice of the proposed action under S. 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 Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council AIR 1927 PC 176 , it was held that the provision is express, explicit and mandatory. It