The court upheld that no notice under Section 80 of the CPC is required when plaintiffs do not seek relief against a public officer in their official capacity.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the trial Court, wherein the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected.

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition and separate possession, wherein the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Molakalmuru, was impleaded as defendant No.12. The defendant No.11 filed an application contending that the Sub- Registrar was arrayed as defendant No.12 without complying with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice under Section 80 of the CPC. However, the trial Court rejected this application.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and reviewing the plaint’s averments, it is noted that the plaintiffs seek a 1/7th share in the suit schedule property and have not sought any relief specifically against defendant No.12.

4. Section 80 of the CPC provides that no suit shall be instituted against the Government or a public officer in respect of any act purportedly done in their official capacity without first serving a two-month notice in writing, except as provided under sub-Section (2), which allows for the dispensing of such notice in cases of urgency.

5. In the present case, it is evident that the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief concerning actions taken by defendant No.12 in an individual or official capacity. As such, there is no cause for the requirement of a notice under Section 80 of the CPC. The trial Court correctly determined that the application filed by defendant No.11 was without merit and rightly dismissed it.

6. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.