TMI Blog1970 (9) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n objection was filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant. It was said that the plaint ought to be rejected under Order VII. Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was sent or served on the defendant-appellant and such a notice was absolutely mandatory. The learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur upheld the objection and dismissed the suit (he really ought to have rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In paragraph 17 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the purpose of the suit would be defeated if two month's notice were given under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that, therefore. 'it must be deemed that the defendants ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted of no implication or exceptions- It was laid down that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary even in suit for permanent injunction. In Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India [1966]1SCR988, relying upon the Privy Council decision mentioned above, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to suits where injunction was claimed. Reference may also be made to Smt. Abida Begam v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow AIR1959All675 and State of Bihar v. Kamaksha Prasad Sharma. Before the Privy Council in Bhagchand Dagdusa Gujarathi's case, it was argued that the plaintiffs had a right urgently calling for a remedy and waiting for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be construed with commonsense. They held that the notice was valid and overruled the objection raised on behalf of the Union of India. That decision cannot possibly be said to be in derogation of the Privy Council decision in Bhagchand Dagdusa Gujarathi's case and the Supreme Court decision in Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand's case 1966CriLJ812. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents referred me to a decision of my own in Sawan Mal v. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Rly., Baroda House, New Delhi. 1970 All LJ 938. I undoubtedly took the view which has now been pressed before me by the learned counsel for the respondents. I relied upon certain decisions of the Madras, Patna and Gujarat High Courts. I have said thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
