SRI RAM Vs. MULLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's application in revision directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Shahjahanpur allowing a revision filed by the defendants-opposite parties against an order of the learned Munsif disposing of issue No. 5. Issue No. 5 was whether the suit was barred by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:- The plaintiff-applicants had filed a suit in respect of certain piece of land for injunction, possession and damages. The defendant-opposite party No. 4 Lakhan filed a written statement asserting that the land in dispute had been settled by the Gaon Sabha. The opposite-party No. 4 Lakhan stated in the written statement that he had purchased the land in an auction held by the Gaon Sabha whjch is opposite party No. 5 in the present Revision. One of the pleas raised in the written statement on behalf of Lakhan was that the State of U. P. was a necessary party under Rule 110-B of the Rules Framed under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Thereupon, it appears that the plaintiff- applicant made an application for impleadment of the State of U. P. THIS applica tion was allowed ; that the State of U. P. was permitted to be impleaded as defendant No. 4 in the suit. After this, upon the objection raised by the opposite party Lakhan, that the suit was incompetent in view of the fact that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served on the State of Uttar Pradesh, an issue was framed as issue No. 5 to the effect mentioned above, The trial Court answered the issue in favour of the opposite-parties holding that in a case where the State is added as a party subsequent to the filing of the suit, the provisions of Sec tion 80 C. P. G. are not applicable. Against the finding of the trial Court, the defendant-opposite party No. 4 Lakhan filed a Revision which has been allowed by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge has taken the view that a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was mandatory, irrespective of the fact whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was impleaded initially when the suit...was filed, or subse quently added as a party. The Revision in directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge answering issue No. 5 in favour of the opposite party. The learned District Judge upon the finding that a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was mandatory and had not been given by the plaintiffs, dismissed the suit itself as incompetent. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicants urged that in a case where the State is impleaded as a defendant subsequent to the filing of the suit, no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. is necessary. He was, however, unable to substantiate his submission by any authority. I am also of the view that it cannot be laid down as a rule that whenever the State of Uttar Pradesh is added as a defendant, subsequent to the filing of the notice, notice under Section 80, C. P. C. is obviated. I agree with the submis sion of the learned counsel for the opposite party that under Rule 110-B of the Rules framed under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, the State of U. P. was a necessary party, and not merely a proper party. That being so, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to get round the provisions of Section 80, C. P. C. by not impleading the State of Uttar Pradesh initially, If the State of Uttar Pradesh was a necessary party, as I am of opinion it was so, then clearly the provisions of Section 80, C. P. C. are attracted and inasmuch as the plaintiff-applicants had not given any notice under Section 80, C. P. C. their suit was incompetent. The learned District Judge, was, therefore, right in dismissing the applicant's suit as incompetent, in view of the fact admittedly the plaintiffs-applicants have not given any notice to the State of U. P. under Section 80, C. P. O. In the result, the Revision fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.