9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. 2. Discrepancy between the name of the sender of the notice and the plaintiff. 3. The State's approach to litigation and its responsibilities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code: The defendant, the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, contended that the suit was invalid due to the lack of a valid notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. However, the court found this contention to be untenable and unjust. The plaintiff had indeed sent a notice under Section 80 before instituting the action. The advocate for the plaintiff described his client as "Kozhikode Lime Centre, Lime Fruits, Vegetable Merchants and Commission Agents, M. V. Market, Calicut-2" in the notice. In the plaint, the plaintiff was described as "Kozhikode Lime Centre by proprietor, P. P. Abubacker." The court observed that the defendant, in their written statement, did not challenge the validity of the notice but merely required formal proof of service. The court concluded that there was no legal plea of denial of the notice under Section 80 or its validity, and thus, no question of the sustainability of the action on account of non-compliance with Section 80 arose. 2. Discrepancy Between the Name of the Sender of the Notice and the Plaintiff: The court addressed the issue of whether a discrepancy between the name of the sender of the notice and the plaintiff was fatal to the suit. The notice was sent by "Kozhikode Lime Centre," and the suit was filed by "Kozhikode Lime Centre, by proprietor P. P. Abubacker." The court found that the defendant had no doubts about the identity of the party and only demanded proof of service of the notice. The court distinguished the present case from the ruling in S. N. Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1449, where the notice was sent by "M/s. S. N. Dutt & Co." and the plaintiff was described as "Surrendra Nath Dutta, sole proprietor of a business carried on under the name and style of S. N. Dutt & Co." The court noted that the name "Kozhikode Lime Centre" did not necessarily indicate a firm and was consistent with an assumed name in which an individual was doing business. The court emphasized that the notice must be construed with regard to commonsense and the object of Section 80, which is to give the Government an opportunity to reconsider its legal position and settle the claim out of court. The court concluded that no confusion of identity had been caused to the defendant, and the present plea served only to lengthen the litigation. 3. The State's Approach to Litigation and Its Responsibilities: The court highlighted the responsibilities of the State in litigation. The State, under the Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. The court emphasized that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against its own citizens by hook or by crook. The State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defense, and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage. The court noted that the State should behave in a straightforward way and settle disputes where litigation could be avoided. The court criticized the present case as an instance of disregard for the national policy on State litigation, which aims to cut back on the volume of lawsuits by not being tempted into forensic showdowns where a reasonable adjustment is feasible. Conclusion: The court allowed the second appeal and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit on the real controversy in the case. The court-fee paid in the appeal was ordered to be refunded, and the court expressed hope that the Railway, through its legal advisers, would have a second look at the merits of the matter and put an end to the litigation by a fair settlement. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Central Government and the General Manager, Southern Railway.
|
