TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kozhi-kode Lime Centre, Lime Fruits, Vegetable Merchants and Commission Agents, M. V. Market, Calicut-2. The same advocate later described the plaintiff in the plaint as Kozhikode Lime Centre by proprietor, P. P. Abubacker . in the plaint it was stated that the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Trichino-polly, had been earlier intimated about the damage to the bags of lime, but no action was taken by him to award compensation. it is also seen that the Chief Commercial Superintendent had directed the plaintiff to produce the pattivas in respect of the consignments concerned and that the goods had been sold in public auction presumably after notice to the plaintiff. There is also a definite averment in paragraph 8 of the plaint that the plaintiff had sent a notice to the defendant claiming damages for the loss sustained by him under Section 80, Civil P. C. The defendant apart from a general denial of everything in the plaint which had not been expressly admitted, adverted to the notice under Section 80 in paragraph 9 of the written statement and averred that the plaintiff is put to strict proof of service of valid and legal notices under Section 78-B, Indian Railways Act, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice and the plaintiff deadly in its effect? 3. The notice was sent by the Kozhikode Lime Centre. The suit was filed by the Kozhikode Lime Centre, by proprietor P. P. Abubacker. The defendant had no doubts, going by the written statement about the identity of the party and only demanded proof of service of the notice although it is curious that the recipient of the notice, namely, the Railway, should have asked for proof of service of the notice. But that is the way defences are taken. The contention that there is a difference in the identity between the entity which caused the notice to be sent and the person who instituted the suit is largely built upon a ruling in S. N. Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1449 reinforced by a recent ruling of this court in Nazeema Textiles v. Union of India, 1970 Ker LT 290 - (AIR 1971 Ker 192). True it is that a superficial study of the two decisions might sug-gest a fatal defect in the present suit also, but on a closer scrutiny, and informed by the numerous other pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the mists of confusion will melt away and commonsense will come back into its own as the Privy Council and the Supreme Court in a few of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e suit it would appear that it was instituted by one T. P. Ebrahim-kutty as proprietor of the concern. While his Lordship accepted the position that notices under Section 80 should not be scrutinised in a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced from commonsense, he reached the conclusion that the identity of the person who issued the notice with the person who brought the suit had not been made out in that case. I must also mention that the learned Judge's attention had, perhaps, not been invited to the .decision in Beohar Rajendra Sinha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1969) 1 SCWR 803 = (AIR 1969 SC 1256) and another case in the same volume. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sheo Prasad, (1969) 1 SCWR 1253 = (AIR 1969 NSC 7). Nor did his Lordship have the benefit of a study of the telling observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision in Raghunath Das v. Union of India, (AIR 1969 SC 674). I shall briefly consider these rulings so as to decoct the correct law that applies to such situations as arise in the present case. All the rulings on the subiect swear by one principle, which in essence applies to all branches of the law, namely, One must construe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the object of the legislature, viz., to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position. If on a reasonable reading of the notice the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects 01 irregularities should be ignored. In the later decision in (1969) 1 SCWR 1253 = (AIR 1969 NSC 7) the appellants were served with notices under Section 80 by an advocate on behalf of Sheo Prasad Gian Chand. In the body of the notices it was stated The name of the claimants is firm Sheo Prasad Gian Chand a joint Hindu family concern which carries on business ..... . The view taken by the court was that the notice substantially complied with the requirements of Section 80, Civil P. C., because it gave sufficient information that a suit would be filed on behalf of the joint Hindu family concern. Their Lordships distinguished S N. Dutt's case AIR 1961 SC 1449 on the ground that the notice there gave the impression that it was on behalf of a firm. The subject has been thoroughly; dealt with in a still later decision En AIR 1969 SC 674 where the facts relating to the iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised, without litigation. The idea is not to arm Government and public servants with secret weapons but to behave in a straightforward way and settle up disputes where litigation could be avoided. 4. A court when studying a notice in relation to the plaint should not go into meticulous and finicky details to discover some discrepancy to defeat the suit, but should take a broad and liberal view and find out whether as a fact the State has been, or is reasonably likely to have been, misled about the identity of the entity who wanted to make a claim in the suit. The State should not be surprised into a suit as it will involve public officers in waste of time and government in avoidable expense, and that is the reason for the provision of an antecedent notice under Section 80. The court may decline the defendant's invitation to exaggerate every deviation between the notice and the plaint, sacrificing substance or striving to ferret out differences about identity. Viewing the facts of the present case in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the broad and beneficial object of Section 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
