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 Madhy