RAGHUNATH DASS versus UNION OF IJLIDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 26-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAGHUNATH DASS 
v. 
UNION OF IJliDIA AND ANR. 
July 26, 1968 
(R. S. BACHAWA'I' AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 
Code of CM/ Procedure, 1908 (Act·:; of 1908), s. 80-Notice under 
section sent ttndt'r trade name of proprietary finn-Suit file_d in name of 
proprie:or-Va/idity of notice-Suit whether maintainable. 
The appellant was the sole proprietor of a business carried on by him 
under the name and style of Mis. Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj. 
He scot 
a notice under s. 80 C.P.C. on behalf of 'Mis. Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj' 
A 
B 
to the General Manager East Indian Raih\.·ay Calcutta in connection with c 
a claim for compensation for lost goods. l"hc notice was signed by him 
as proprietor 'for Mis. Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj'. When he subsequently 
filed a suit against the Rail\\.·ay irs maintainability was challenged on the 
ground that the notice unclcr s. 80 was invalid, as there was no identity 
between the person who sent the notice and the person who filed the suit. 
·rhe suit was decreed by the trial Court but the ple;1 that the notice was 
invalid was ace-opted by the High Court. The appellant with certificate, 
came to this Court. 
D 
HELD : The object of the notice contemplated by s. 80 is to give to 
the concerned Governments and public officers opportunity to reconsider 
the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised 
without litigation so that public time and money may not be wasted. The 
provisions in s. 80 Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used as 
boobytraps against ignorant and illiterate persons. [454 B-C] 
In the present case although the notice has been sent under the appel· 
E 
]ant's trade name he had clearly indicated that he signed it 
a.~ the pro-
prietor of the business. 
The notice had to be read as a whole and in a 
manner not divorced from common sense. 
So read the notice could not 
have given the Union of India the impression that it 
wa~ issued 
on 
behalf of a partnership concern. The High Court had wrongly held that 
the notice was invalid. [454 
H. 455 Ej 
S. N. Dua v. Union of India, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 560. distinguished. 
F 
Dhian Sin!ill Soblia Singh and Anr. v. The Union of India, 
[1958) 
9.C.R. 781, 795, relied on 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1005 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 24, 1962. 
of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 205 of 1950. 
F:. C. Aganva/a and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. fr. Nayar, for respondent 
No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
llegde, J. The only que<;tion that arises for decision in this 
appeal by certificate is whether the High c.ou.rt is right in hoid~n~ 
that the notice issued by the appelfant-plainltff under s. 80, Civil 
G 
H 
. -
i ·-
i 
.._. 
·' 
- ' 
RAGHUNATH V. UNION (Hegde, !.) 
451 
A 
Procedure Code is defective and therefore the suit is not main-
tainable. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The plaintiff despatched on July 29, 194 7 certai.n 
copper 
articles from Gujranwala through North Western Railway to a 
place called Aghawanpur near Moradabad. 
That consignment 
never reached the destination. Consequently the plaintiff claimed 
a sum of Rs. 13,880 as damages. 
The learned Civil 
Judge, 
Moradabad, who tried the suit decreed the plaintiffs claim in a 
sum of Rs. 10,206/9/- with interest at six per cent from 15th 
August 194 7 till the date of realisation. As against that decision, 
the Union of India went up in appeal to the High Court of 
Allahabad. The decree of the trial court was assailed on several 
grounds one of them being that the notice issued under s. 80, Civil 
Procedure Code is invalid. The High Court accepted the conten-
tion of the Union of India that the notice in question is invalid 
but rejected the other pleas advanced on its behalf. It accordingly 
allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the sole ground 
that the notice issued di_d not comply with the requirements of 
s. 80, Civil Procedure Code. 
It is not disputed that at the relevant time, the plaintiff carried 
on his business at Gujranwala under the name 
and style . of 
Raghunath Das Mulkhraj. 
He was the sole proprietor of that 
concern. 
He sent several notices to the concerned authorities, 
demanding compensation for his goods lost in transit. 
It is not necessary to i"efer to all the notices issued by the 
plaintiff. It is sufficient for our purpose if we consider the legality 
of the last notice sent by him viz. on June 19, 1948. If that 
n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.