First Appeal No. 18 of 2013.

2nd May, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Joseph Vaz
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias,Mr. K. Noorani

Cases Cited:
Shri Rajaram M. Caisukar Vs. St. Joseph Chapel & Ors., Writ Petition No. 307/2012 [Para 8,16]
Mrs. Ursula Renha Rumaldina Soares & Ors Vs. Mrs. Fatima Conceicao Tony Colaco e Fernandes & Ors., Writ Petition No. 325/2012
State of A.P. and Ors. Vs. Pioneer Builders, A.P., 2007(2) ALL MR 435 (S.C.) =AIR 2007 SC 113 [Para 9,18]
State of Madras Vs. C. P. Agencies and anr., AIR 1960 SC 1309 [Para 15]
Ebrahimbhai Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1975 Bombay 13 [Para 20]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Parties were put to notice that the matter shall be finally disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. Heard Mr. J. Vaz, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 and Mr. K. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.11 and 12.

3. This appeal arises out of the judgment, order and decree dated 09.07.2012, passed by the learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji, in Civil Suit No. 68/2009, thereby rejecting the plaint as against defendants no.11 and 12 and 4 further directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs to be re-presented before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of Civil Suit No. 68/2009.

5. Facts, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are as under :

Initially, the plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No. 113/2005/C, before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, against the defendants no. 1 to 10 and Government was not a party to that suit. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs were co-owners of the suit property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants jointly and/or severally from alienating, transferring, selling or creating any third party rights in the suit property. On 17.04.2009, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed before the Civil Judge Senior Division, by which the plaintiffs sought to add defendant no. 11 i.e. the State of Goa as party to the suit and a prayer to the effect that the suit property admeasures 45393 sq. metres in terms of the planta No. 12084/LN27 and survey authorities be directed to carry necessary corrections in their records. This amendment was sought as the name of Government was recorded in the occupants column of survey records of Form I & XIV in respect of the suit property. By order dated 17.04.2009, the said amendment application was allowed. After the amendment was carried out to the plaint, defendant no. 11 was served with the notice. On 27.07.2009, an application was filed by the plaintiffs before the Civil Judge Senior Division, for transfer of the said suit to the District Court since the Government was added as party to the suit due to which the Civil Judge Senior Division had ceased to have jurisdiction in the said matter. This application was allowed. On 28/8/2009, an application, on behalf of the Government, also came to be filed, before the Civil Judge Senior Division, alleging that the Civil Judge Senior Division had ceased to have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction vested in the District Court. An order dated 15/9/2009 was passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division sending the file to the District Court.

6. The suit was then registered before the District Court as Civil Suit No. 68/2009. Defendant No. 12 came to be added to the cause title. Defendants no.11 and 12, in their written statement, filed before the District Judge-I, alleged that the suit is not maintainable since no notice as required to be given under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code(C.P.C.) was given to them.

7. By consent of the parties, the trial Court heard the learned counsel for the parties on the plea of non-maintainability of the suit for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. and by the impugned Judgment and Order held that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to have issued notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. to the defendants no. 11 and 12. Since no such notice was issued, the plaint was rejected as against defendants no. 11 and 12.

8. Mr. Vaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, submitted that the suit was only for declaration that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit property along with defendants no. 1 to 10 and for injunction as against the said defendants and not as against any public officer in respect of acts done by him in his official capacity and that the defendants no. 11 and 12 were subsequently added, as a matter of precaution, only because the name of the Government was wrongly recorded in Form No. I & XIV of survey record pertaining to the suit property. According to Mr. Vaz, in the circumstances above, there was no need of giving notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. to the defendants no. 11 and 12. He further submitted that the amendment to the plaint for adding the Government as a party was allowed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, as trial Court and the matter came to be transferred to the District Judge-I only because it involved adjudication against the Government and thus the District Judge-I became the trial Court. According to the learned Counsel, order rejecting plaint amounts to review of the order allowing amendment of the plaint to add the Government as party. He submitted that learned trial Court (District Judge-I) could not have sat in review against the said order on the amendment application, passed by trial Court (Civil Judge Senior Division), itself. He has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 307 of 2012 (Shri Rajaram M. Caisukar V/s St. Joseph Chapel & Ors) and Writ Petition No. 325 of 2012 (Mrs. Ursula Renha Rumaldina Soares & Ors V/s Mrs. Fatima Conceicao Tony Colaco e Fernandes & Ors.)

9. On the other hand, Mr. K. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the Government, submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was inter alia for correction of survey records, in which the name of the Government has been recorded in the occupants column and for declaration that the plaintiffs are the coowners of the suit property, due to which Government became a necessary party. He further submitted that notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is mandatory. He read out the provisions of Section 80 of C.P.C. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "State of A. P. and Ors. V/s Pioneer Builders, A. P.", reported in AIR 2007 SC 113 : [2007(2) ALL MR 435 (S.C.)]. Learned Counsel submitted that this was not a suit in which any application under Section 80(2) of C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiffs. He therefore, contended that the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 307/2012 is not applicable. He further submitted that in Writ Petition NO. 325/2012, the question of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was not involved and hence the Judgment in this Writ Petition is also not applicable. Learned Counsel urged that there is no scope for interference with the impugned Judgment and Order and hence the appeal be dismissed.

10. On behalf of respondents no. 1 to 6, Mr. Costa Frias, learned Advocate, adopted the arguments of learned Additional Government Advocate. He further submitted that the order of trial Court, rejecting the plaint cannot be taken as an order of review of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, on the amendment application. He submitted that the question of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. did not arise nor was dealt with, at the time of decision, by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, on amendment application but it was raised by the Government after it was joined as party and before the competent Court, since mandatory provision of Section 80 of C.P.C. has not been complied with. He, therefore, supported the impugned Judgment and order.

11. I have gone through the original record and proceedings of Civil Suit No. 68/2009 and the Judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made by them.

12. The point that arises for determination is whether or not the Civil Suit No. 68/2009, filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable because of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 80 of C.P.C.

13. The suit was filed inter alia for declaration that the plaintiffs are the co-owners of the suit property and along with impleadment of State of Goa as party, a prayer was added to the effect that the suit property admeasures 45393 square metres in terms of the planta No. 12084/LN27 and survey authorities be directed to carry out necessary corrections in their records. Correction of survey records was sought also because the name of the Government figures in the occupants column of Form No. I & XIV, of the suit property.

14. Section 80 of C.P.C. provides as under :

"80. Notice.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of--

(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, [expect where it relates to a railway] a Secretary to that Government;

(b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway, the Central Manager of that railway;

(bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf;

(c) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district; and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.

(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit.

Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1).

(3) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1) if in such notice--

(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1) and

(b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated."

15. From bare reading of the above provision, it is clear that the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is mandatory. In the case of "State of Madras Vs. C. P. Agencies and anr." (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1309), the Apex Court has held that Section 80 is express, explicit and mandatory and admits of no implications or exceptions. In Civil Suit No. 68/2009, the plaintiffs had challenged the entry of the name of the Government in the survey records and wanted correction of the entries in the survey records. They wanted a declaration that they are the co-owners of the suit property. The defendants no. 11 and 12 were the State of Goa and Department of Land & Survey, Government of Goa. Thus, the suit was not against any public officer to claim that there should be an act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. The suit was against the Government. In a suit against the public officer, notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is necessary only where the suit is in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. In a Suit against Government , notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. must be given in all cases. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, notice was mandatory. Admittedly, no such notice, under Section 80 of C.P.C. was given to defendants no. 11 and 12.

16. In Writ Petition No. 307 of 2012 (Shri Rajaram M. Caisukar V/s St. Joseph Chapel & Ors), it has not been held that notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is not required. The question there was whether the party had made out a case for relief under Section 80(2) of C.P.C. or not. The above was not a question before the trial Court, in the present matter. The above case is not at all applicable to the present case.

17. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 325 of 2012 (Mrs. Ursula Renha Rumaldina Soares V/s Mrs. Fatima Conceicao Tony Colaco e Fernandes) also there was no question relating to the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the said judgment is also not applicable to the present case.

18. In para 12 of the Judgment in the case of "Pioneer Builders, A. P.", [2007(2) ALL MR 435 (S.C.)] (supra), relied upon by the learned Additional Government Advocate,, it has been held as under :

"12. From a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 80, it is plain that subject to what is provided in sub-section (2) thereof, no suit can be filed against the Government or a public officer unless requisite notice under the said provision has been served on such Government or public officer, as the case may be. It is well settled that before the amendment of Section 80, the provisions of unamended Section 80 admitted of no implications and exceptions whatsoever and are express, explicit and mandatory. The Section imposes a statutory and unqualified obligation upon the Court and in the absence of compliance with section 80, the suit is not maintainable. (See. Bhagchand Dagdusa Gujrathi and Ors. V. MANU/PR/0026/1927; Secretary of State for India Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand V. MANU/SC/0016/1965 The Union of India : [1966] 1 SCR 988 and Bihari Chowdhary and Anr. V. MANU/SC/0004/1984 : State of Bihar and Ors. [1984] 3 SCR 309. The service of notice under Section 80 is, thus, a condition precedent for the institution of a suit against the Government or a public officer. The legislative intent of the Section is to give the Government sufficient notice of the suit, which is proposed to be filed against it so that it may reconsider the decision and decide for itself whether the claim made could be accepted or not. As observed in Bihari Chowdhary (supra), the object of the Section is the advancement of justice and the securing of public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation."

19. When the application for amendment of the plaint for addition of the Government as party to the Special Civil Suit No. 113/2005/C was heard and decided by the Civil Judge Senior Division, at Mapusa, Government was not party to the suit and hence could not have objected on the ground of lack of notice under section 80 of C.P.C. It was only after the Government was added as defendant no 11, and appeared after service of summons, it could disclose that no notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was issued to it. By allowing the amendment application, it cannot be said that the Civil Judge Senior Division had held that no notice under section 80 of C.P.C. was necessary. Once the amendment to add Government as party was allowed, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division had ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain that suit, in view of the Goa Civil Courts Act. Hence, the said suit landed in the District Court and was registered as Civil Suit No. 68/2009. In the written statement filed before the District Judge-I, the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of notice under section 80 of C.P.C. was taken by the defendants no. 11 and 12. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs that the trial Court (District Judge-I), by passing impugned Judgment and order, sat in review over the orders passed by the trial Court (Civil judge Senior Division), on amendment application. There is also no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that since the Government came to be added as party subsequently, question of giving notice does not arise. As has been rightly observed by the trial Court, it would have been otherwise if the Court had to suo motu implead the Government as party to the suit.

20. In view of the above, notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was necessary in the present matter. However, same was not given. In the case of "Ebrahimbhai V/s State of Maharashtra and others", reported in AIR 1975 Bombay 13, relied upon by the learned trial Judge, it has been held that under Order VII Rule 11(d), it is obligatory on the Court to reject the plaint where the suit appears from the statement of the plaint to be barred by any law and hence in a case where the suit is filed before the expiration of the period of notice contemplated by Section 80, there is no alternative for the Court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. In the present case, the plaint does not disclose that required notice under section 80 of C.P.C. was given to the defendants No. 11 and 12. Admittedly, no such notice at all has been given. Notice is condition precedent for the institution of the suit against Government. The only course open to the Court in a suit instituted without complying with the requirements of Section 80 of C.P.C. will be to reject it under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any fault in the impugned judgment and order.

21. In the result, the appeal has no merits and it stands dismissed. However, with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.