9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the requirement of prior notice before instituting a suit against the Government or a public officer.
Summary: The case involved the plaintiffs appealing against the dismissal of their suit for declaration of title and possession due to lack of proper notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C). The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the contention that the suit was not maintainable without the required notice. The High Court also dismissed the appeal, leading to this special leave appeal before the Supreme Court. The Section 80 of the C.P.C imposes a mandatory bar against instituting a suit against the Government or a public officer until two months after notice in writing has been delivered, allowing the authorities to scrutinize and potentially settle the claim without litigation. The purpose is to advance justice and avoid unnecessary disputes. The Privy Council's decision in Bhagchand Dagadusa case emphasized the strict and mandatory nature of Section 80, rejecting exceptions for urgent relief like injunctions. This principle was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases, establishing that suits without the required notice are not maintainable. Despite a conflicting decision from the High Court of Kerala, the Supreme Court confirmed the importance of Section 80 as a provision of public policy, dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court's judgment. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs in the appeal.
|
