BAI CHANCHALBEN Vs. RAMANLAL KESHAVLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The next question which is required to be considered is in respect of the effect of the suit against defendants nos. 8 and 13 when notice under sec. 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 was not given to the Registrar as provided by that section. The learned Advocate Miss Shah submitted that this section is analogous to sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code before amendment stood as under :

(2.) A few authorities were cited. The first authority which was cited was GAJA AND OTHERS V. DASA KOERI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN A.I.R. 1964 ALLAHABAD AT PAGE 471. In that case it was observed If the State Government could be said to have waived its objection regarding want of notice by not taking a plea to that effect in a written statement filed by it it can be said with equal reason that the State Government waived it by filing no written statement at all. It was also observed If a notice can be and has been waived by the authority concerned it is not open to any other party to the suit to urge want of notice against the maintainability of the suit

(3.) The second ruling which was referred to was a case PALETI SIVARAMKRISHNAIAH V. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N. C. CANALS SATHENAPALLI AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN A.I.R. 1978 ANDHRA PRADESH AT PAGE 389. In that case it was held as under :