9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code for notice to the Secretary of State for India in Council. - Maintainability of the suits brought by two plaintiffs when notice was given by only one plaintiff. - Interpretation of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding rejection of the plaint. - Possibility of partial rejection of the plaint in case of non-compliance with Section 80. - Impact of non-compliance with Section 80 on the suits against other defendants. Analysis: 1. The appeals revolve around the rejection of suits due to non-compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates a notice to the Secretary of State for India in Council before the institution of a suit. The lower courts rejected the plaints under Order 7, Rule 11, citing improper notice under Section 80 as the reason. 2. The suits were brought by two plaintiffs, seeking to establish their right to resume inams and recover possession of the lands. However, the notice required by Section 80 was given by only one plaintiff. The judgment emphasizes the strict and mandatory nature of Section 80, citing the Privy Council's ruling that admits no exceptions or qualifications to its requirements. 3. The judgment highlights the necessity of identity between the person issuing the notice under Section 80 and the person bringing the suit. It refers to precedents where non-compliance with Section 80 led to the dismissal of suits, even if the notice was given by a related party. The recent pronouncement by the Privy Council reinforces the stringent application of Section 80. 4. The argument for partial rejection of the plaint in respect of one plaintiff is dismissed, as the rejection under Section 80 entails the dismissal of the entire plaint. The judgment clarifies that non-compliance with Section 80 is a ground for dismissal under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. The judgment addresses the appellants' contention to proceed with the suits against defendants other than the Secretary of State. However, it concludes that if the claim against the Secretary of State fails due to non-compliance with Section 80, the claim against other defendants also fails, as observed in a previous ruling by the Privy Council. 6. In conclusion, the judgment upholds the lower court's decision to dismiss the appeals, emphasizing the fatal nature of the non-compliance with Section 80. It affirms that the suits are not maintainable due to the improper notice, leading to the dismissal of the plaints in their entirety.
|
