ORDER notice that what is the relief is being sought in the suit, and also cause of action has not been mentioned. It is argued that in absence of mentioning cause of action and the relief prayed in the suit, the notice itself is defective and nullity.

6. It is argued that the suit is not formal suit as against the State and even though there may not be any interest in the land of the State Government but since the petitioner wants a consequential mutation to be carried out by the State Government authorities, therefore the notice under Section 80 CPC in proper manner was required to be issued. It is further argued that even if benefit of Section 80 (3) is to be claimed by the plaintiff, even then the plaintiff has to show that the name, description and residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and cause of action and relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated which is not there in the notice in question and therefore for want of compliance of Section 80(3)(b) CPC, the notice was defective.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the litigation is between private parties and the State of Madhya Pradesh has been impleaded only because it is a suit regarding agricultural land and Tahsildar has been impleaded only because the consequential mutation is to be carried out by the Tahsildar in case the suit is decreed. Therefore, it appears that the Tahsildar has been impleaded only by way of abundant caution so that at the time of execution of decree the plaintiff would be able to get the decree executed by getting mutation done by the Tahsildar which would be easier if the Tahsildar is impleaded as party.

9. The basic purpose of notice under Section 80 CPC is to grant opportunity to the public officers to reconsider the legal position and to settle the disputes, if so advised, without forcing the parties into litigation. The legislative intent is only to save public money and time on unnecessary litigation so that the State authorities can examine the reasonable claims to avoid being drawn into unnecessary litigation. The purpose is advancement of cause of justice and not as a weapon against ignorant and rustic litigants.

10. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had moved an application under Section 80(2) CPC seeking exemption from notice and as per Section 80(2) CPC, suit can be instituted with leave of the court without serving the notice as required by Section 80(1) and once permission has been granted by the court under Section 80(2) CPC, therefore, the contentions of the petitioner defendant no. 1 pale into insignificance.

11. However, since the issues have been raised before this court, they have to be considered by this court. It is pertinent to note here that the person bringing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was not the public officer or the State Government, but a private litigant. As already discussed above, since the purpose of Section 80 CPC is to enable the public officers to examine the claims of private parties to avoid any avoidable litigation, therefore, the objection for non-compliance of Section 80 or insufficient compliance of Section 80 can only be taken by the public officer or the State Authority and not by the private litigant. In Gaja Vs. Dasa Koeri AIR 1964 Allahabad 471, the High Court of Allahabad held as under :-

8. Closely linked with the question of waiver is the question whether the bar of Sec. 80 can be pleaded by a party other than those to whom notice is required to be given. The answer to the latter question follows, in my opinion, as a corollary from the answer to the former. If notice can be and has been waived by the authority concerned the natural conclusion appears to be that it is not open to any other party to the suit to urge want of notice against the maintainability of the suit. In Rup Lal Agarwala v. Dkansar Coal Co. [A.I.R. 1933 Patna 49.] it was observed that:“A third party is not co