P. KANDASAMY Vs. FAMILY MANAGER, A. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the third Defendant in O.S. No. 134 of 2003 in order to challenge the order dated 23.07.2013 in I.A. No. 173 of 2012 in O.S. No. 134 of 2003.

(2.) The case of the Revision Petitioner is that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are the Government and an officer of the Government and that, therefore, prior notice under section 80 of C.P.C. should have been issued by the first Respondent herein/Plaintiff before instituting the suit. In view of the non-issuance of such a notice under section 80 C.P.C, it is contended that the suit is barred by law. For this purpose, I.A. No. 173 of 2012 was filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. so as to reject the plaint on the ground that it is barred by law.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the issuance of a notice under section 80 C.P.C. is a condition precedent to the filing of a suit against the Government or its officer. He further submits that the non-issuance of such notice is fatal to the suit. In respect of section 80(2) C.P.C., which enables the Court to dispense with the notice, the learned counsel submits that the power to dispense with is to be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in view of the requirement for emergent relief. Otherwise, the plaint is liable to be returned so as to comply with the requirement of section 80 C.P.C.