EX-OFFICIO CHITTY REGISTRAR, MEENACHIL Vs. CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by defendant 4 in O.S. No. 227 of 1958 of the Additional Munsiff's Court of Meenachil the ex -officio Chitty Registrar, Meenachil, against an order of the lower court dismissing his objection that the suit was not maintainable for want of the requisite notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff and defendant 2 are subscribers in the chitty of which defendant 1 is the foreman. Section 17(1) of the Travancore Chitties Act, 26 of 1120, provides: -

(2.) THE Plaintiff brought the suit alleging that the claims of all the subscribers to the chitty except himself and defendant 2 had been satisfied and that, as the amount deposited with defendant 3 bank was insufficient to meet the claims of himself and defendant 2, he should be given a declaration that the said amount could be drawn by himself and defendant 2 and they might be allowed to draw the amount. Since defendant 4 was the officer who had to be satisfied of the sufficiency of the security, the plaintiff impleaded him also as a party to the suit. Defendant 4 raised the contention that as he was a public officer notice to him under section 80, Code of Civil Procedure was necessary and that the suit was not maintainable, as such notice had not been given by the plaintiff. The lower court repelled this contention holding that no notice was necessary as this was not a suit brought against a public officer in respect of any act done by him in his official capacity. The revision petition is filed by defendant 4 against the order of the lower court repelling his objection.

(3.) SECTION 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood at the time of the cases referred to above read: