ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 16.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.235 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Perambalur.

2.The revision petitioners are the defendants 7 to 11 in O.S.No.235 of 2018 on the file of Sub Court, Peramabalur. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for cancelling two sale deeds registered by the third defendant, Sub Registrar, Kattappana, in document nos.104/1996 & 105/1996 dated 08.01.1996 and also for a direction to the defendants to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs by way of damages for the mental agony undergone by them. The defendants 1 to 6 are government officials. Admittedly, the suit was filed without issuing notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The defendants 7 to 11 are private parties and they filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in I.A.No.1 of 2019 on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the government is not maintainable since Section 80 CPC notice has not been issued to them. It is also contended by them that the petition to dispense with such a notice under Section 80 (2) CPC was also not allowed by the Court and hence, the suit in O.S.No.235 of 2018 should be rejected.

4.The respondents/plaintiffs filed their counter and after full contest, the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, dismissed the petition vide her orders dated 16.12.2019 by observing thus :

"10.It is argued that the respondents have already given suit notice to the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant prior to filing of this suit and same has been marked Ex.R9. Ex.R9 reveals that the suit notice to the Inspector General of Registration, Thrivandraum and the Sub Registrar Kattapana of Kerala State has been duly issued by all these respondents on 22.02.2018 itself about the institution of the case. Only after that notice, this suit has been filed in this Court on 23.08.2019. Though Ex.R9 notice has been issued only against 1st and 3rd defendants and not to other defendants, the actual active defendants who have allegedly refused for the cancellation of document are the 1st and 3rd defendants. So it is proved that the active defendants in this case have clear notice about the facts of the case even prior to the filing of this suit.

11.Under the above said circumstances there is no question of filing this suit by the respondents without any notice to the defendant/namely the Sub Registrar and Registration Department. Even if it is assumed that the notice is not issued it is only procedural irregularity which can be rectified. But after filing this suit, these 1 to 6 defendants have knowledge about this case and government pleader has appeared for all those 1 to 6 defendants and case is pending for filing written statement. So, under such circumstances the question of rejection of plaint as per Order VII Rule 11 of CPC will not rise as taken by these petitioners who are the independent parties in this case. Hence this Court is of the considered view that this petition deserves no merits."

Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants 7 to 11.

5.Heard Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr.N.Subramanian learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and Dr.S.Suriya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 9 to 11.

6. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the suit in O.S.No.235 of 2018 was filed even without issuing notice under Section 80 CPC to the government officials, who are shown as defendants 1 to 6 in the suit and no order was passed in the petition to dispense with the notice under Section 80 (2) CPC.

7.This Court directed the Subordinate Judge, Peramabalur, to send a report with regard to the orders passed in the petition under Section 80 (2) CPC. Accordingly, the learned Subordinate Judge,