PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. MAITRI SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T. S. No. 12 of 1997 was filed for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for refund of consideration. In the said suit, State was impleaded by the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bonai, as defendant No. 3. The suit was admittedly filed without service of any notice contemplated under Section 80(1), C.P.C. Along with the plaint, the petitioners filed a separate application seeking leave under Section 80(2), C.P.C. to file the suit without service of statutory notice on the State Government. The said application having been rejected by the trial Court, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) The main contention of the petitioners is that the trial Court has not considered the question in the light of provisions contained in Section 80(2), C.P.C. Section 80(2), C.P.C. reads as follows :"

(3.) In the present case, the trial Court has rejected the application solely on the ground that notice under Section 80(1) was necessary to be given. The trial Court has nowehre considered the scope and ambit of Section 80(2). Since the impugned order has been passed without specifically considering the effect of Section 80(2), it must be held that the Court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and as such the matter is required to be reconsidered by the trial Court. Accordingly, I quash the impugned order and direct that the trial Court should reconsider the question of grant of leave to the light of provisions contained in Section 80(2), C.P.C.