( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this appeal relates to sufficiency of Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. It arises in this manner. The appealing plaintiff brought a suit claiming Rs. 15,000 as arrears of salary against a Secretary to the Union of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh and others. It transpired that the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that notice under Section 80 of the Code was not served either on the secretary to the Union of India or the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed this appeal challenging the order of rejection of the plaint and paid on the memorandum of appeal a court-fee of Rs. 7/8/- only.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff made the point that, in a case like this, the plaint as a whole ought not to have been rejected and the suit should have been allowed to proceed against defendants other than those to whom a notice under section 80 of the Code had to be given. For this view, reliance is placed upon shankarrao Balaji v. Shambihari AIR 1951 Nag 419, Mst. Chandani v. Rajasthan state, AIR 1962 Raj 36 and Ramcharan v. Custodian Evacuee Propert