LexBIHARI CHOWDHARY & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I ' 30!1 BIHARI CHOWDHARY.& ANR. v. STAT,E OF BIHAR & ORS .. March 26, 1984 (A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI,. H.) Code of Civil Procedu;e 1908, Section 80; · Suit against g~vernment-lnstitutiorr afttr expiry of statutory period of two ft!Onths after 'notice has been delivere,d~NeCessity of. Interpretation of Statl;tes. A B c Language of statute clear and unambiguous-Duty. of court to give effecrto D . statute n~twithstanding hardship liktly to be Caused: . ·, The appellants-plaintiffs instituted a suit for deClaration of titIO and deli- very of possession of immovable properties. The first fespondent was thC State -Oovernment. Prior to the institution of t~e suit the plaintiffs, had issued notice to the 1st respondent under section 80 CPC, but Without waiting for the.statutory period of two months to expire, the plaintiffs instituted the suit. Jn the written '. . statement filed on behalf of the State it was-contended that the suit was not QJaintainable for want of proper notice under section 80 CPC. The Trial court >Upheld the contention and dismissed the suit. The order was confirmed by the lirst appellate .court and the second appeal preferred by the. appellants to the High Court was dismissed in Iimine. . 'Dismissing the appeal to this Court', HELD: 1. A suit against the Gov~rnment or a public officer, to which the requirement .of a_ prior notice .. under section ·80 CPC iS attracted, cannot be · validly instituted until the expiration ·of ihe period of two , months next after the '·notice in writing has beep delivered to the authorities concerned· in the manner prescribed in the said section and if filed before the expiry of the said period, the suit has to ]Je dismissed as not maintainabl~. [314 A·Bl · 2. The effect of section 80 CPC prior to its amendment by Act 104 of 1976 .js clearly to iinpose a· bar agains·t the institution of a s"Uit tlgainst the Govern·, mentor a public officer in respect 6f any act purported to be done by him in his Offidal capat.ity until the expiration .or two months after notice has been deli .. .ered. There is clearly a public purpose underlying this manda.tory provision. [312 C, Hi. E F G H , JI .• 310 SUPRtMBCOURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.' 3. The examination of the scheme-of the Section reveals that the section has; been enaeted as a measure . of public policy "'.ith. the object "' ensuring that ·'":~re a· suit is-,,instituted against .-the &vermnent Or a '.public _officer, th~ Government or the officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinise_ ther- cl3.im in respect of which the suit_ is proposed to be filed· and if it-be fouDd to be~ 3.just·claim, to take immCdiate 13ction and thereby avoid unnecessary Iitigatibn1 and save public time and. money by settling the claim without driViog the~ pfrsOn wbo issued the notice, to institµte the :.uit . involving considerable expenditure and delay. [312 El · · 4. When the language used in the Statute iS clea-r_ and una_mbi_guous, it is.~ the p}au'.i duty of._the COurt to give effect tC? it and considerations of hardship .. wnl not be a legitimate· ground for not faithfully implementing the mandate or C · the legislMure. · [313 B] D •E Jj' G H. . " Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary of .. Statefor India, 54 IA 338 ; .Velfayan v: Madras· Province,· 74 ·Irtd!an Appeals 223; a~nd SawaL?inghai Nirmal Chondv~ Union of Jndia [1966] 1 S.~.R. 956 referred to. Nani Amma Nanninl Amnfa 'v . .State of Kerdla AIR 1963 Kerala 114,. -overruled. C!VrL APPELLATE JURISQICTION : Civil Appeal.Np. 1048 of. 1979 . . From the Judgment and Order dated 15. 12. 1978 of Patna. lligh Court in Second Appeal No. 215 of 1978 ·'' ' • L.N. Sinha, B.P. Singh, Ranjit Kumar a11d Ravi Prakash for the'· appeallants. D.Goburefhan for the respondents.· The Judgment of the Com;t was delivered by . ' • BALAKRISHNA ERADI J. The s]1ort question that arsies foP, c,onsideration in this appeal by special leave concerns the true scope, and application of.Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. 'The appellants. her~in · ar~ the plaintiffs in a. suit instituted in t)le i\iunsiff's Court, Bihar S'harif, seeking the reliefs of dedaration of title and deliver¥ of possession with mesne profits in respect ot:. the properties descdbed in the plaint. The State of Bihar-the 1st respondent herein is the main defendant in the suit. Prior to the· institution of the suit, the plah1tiffs had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.