The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of leave under S. 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be hindered by technicalities, and the necessity of serving a formal notice under S. 80 (1) should be considered in light of the urgency of the situation.

( 1 ) THIS application in revision has been filed by the plaintiff of C. S. No. 25-A/ 84 as it is now numbered, against the order passed by the II Addl. Judge to the Court of District Court, Raipur, dated 5-4-89, directing the plaint to be returned to the applicant under S. 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for complying with the requirement of S. 80 (1 ).

( 2 ) ALTHOUGH the suit, as now registered in the Court of II Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge is numbered as C. S. No. 25-A/84, it was actually instituted on 12-2-1979. Along with the plaint, an application was filed by the applicant-plaintiff to grant leave to institute the suit against the State Government, respondent No. 1 under S. 80 (2), C. P. C. The other defendant is a private individual, who is non-applicant respondent No. 2 and has been subsequently added is not necessary for the purpose of the present civil revision application.

( 3 ) THE main relief sought in the suit was for restraining the State Government from realising the dues which were assessed by way of sales tax against one M/s. Choudhary Rice and Co. with which, according to the plaintiff-applicant, it had no concern. The further prayer was that the auction proposed to be held of the property belonging to the applicant-plaintiff, be directed to be restrained from being held.

( 4 ) AN application under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed along with the plaint. Due notice thereof was given to the State Government and on the very next day, i. e. on 13-2-1979, the State Government respondent N. A. No. 1 (defendant No. 1) was represented by a counsel and a consent order was passed restraining the respondent No. 1 from holding the auction until further orders. On 10-5-79, however, after finally hearing the parties on the injunction application, the trial Court rejected the prayer and vacated the interim injunction. Against the order dated 10-5-79, the applicant filed Misc. Appeal No. 119/79 in this Court. Initially an ex parte order of injunction was granted in favour of the applicant by this Court, but after finally hearing the parties, the Misc. Appeal was dismissed on 10-10-79 with the observation that the trial Court ought to have first passed a proper order on the issue with regard to the issue whether requisite Court-fees having been paid by the plaintiff applicant or not before it could consider any application for injunction. After this order was passed, the question with regard to the requisite order was passed, the question with regard to the requisite Court-fee having been paid was ordered to be taken up as a preliminary issue. In the meantime, with the consent of parties, on 19-8-1980 again a fresh order of injunction was passed by the trial Court. Ultimately on 6-1-1981, the preliminary issue was decided in favour of the applicant and it was held that proper Court-fee had been paid. Against that order, the state Government non-applicant respondent No. 1 filed a civil revision in this Court which was registered as Civil Revision No. 570/ 81 which was dismissed by this Court.

( 5 ) THEN began a new chapter. An application was filed on behalf of the State Govt. defendant No. 1, respondent No. 1, in the trial Court that the suit was not maintainable, because no notice u/s. 80 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served before the institution of the suit and that, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and respondent No. 1 also pressed that issue be also tried as a new preliminary issue. In course of hearing of that application by respondent No. 1, it was urged before the trial Court by the plaintiff applicant that an application for leave of the Court to institute the suit had been filed by the plaintiff-applicant as far back as on 12-2-1979 along with the plaint itself on which presumably the Court then in seisin of the matter had not inadvertently passed an order in spite of the urgency of the matter. Nonetheless, injunction was gra