IMPORTANT POINT
Once Court granted exemption under Section 80(2) of CPC then subsequently Court cannot reopen case to order for compliance of Section 80(1) CPC.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. —This revision petition is against the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, vide which application for interim injunction has been dismissed and further for non-compliance of Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), the plaint has been ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, argued that along with the suit, an application under Section 80(2) CPC was also filed for seeking exemption from serving advance notice under Section 80(1) CPC upon defendant Nos. 7 to 10. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court and the plaintiffs were permitted to pursue the suit without serving advance notice upon defendants Nos.7 to 10, who are the official respondents. Learned counsel has further argued that once the permission has been granted to sue without serving advance notice to the official respondents as envisaged in Section 80(1) CPC; the said order cannot be reopened by the learned trial Court later on

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in terms of proviso to Section 80(2) of CPC, if the Court finds that no urgent or immediate relief is needed, then the plaint can be returned for compliance of Section 80(1) CPC.

4. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. Before adverting to the merits of the case, Section 80 CPC needs to be noticed which reads as under:

80. “Notice —(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done, by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been (delivered to or left at the office of:

(a) in the case of a suit against thee Central Government;

(b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway;)

(***)

(bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf;

(c) in the case of a suit against [any other State Government], a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district; [***]

47[***]

and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that, such notice has been so delivered or left.

[(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit:

Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1).

(3) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1) if in such notice :

(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the