STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the assistance of the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment dated 31.3.1997. The plaintiff was non- suited by the trial Court mainly on the ground that he did not serve a valid notice under Section 80, CPC. This finding was set aside by the first Appellate Court, for the reasons given in paras 8 to 15 of its judgment, which read as under :-

(2.) I have examined the records of the trial court. The plaintiff has placed on record Ex.P-2, a carbon copy of the notice under Section 80, CPC, dated 4.12.1985, wrongly typed as 4.12.986. Exh.P-3 and P-4, are the postal receipts. It is true that there is no registered acknowledgment due from the side of the respondent but presumption of service can always be attached to the due service when the plaintiff has been able to place on record the original postal receipts, Exh.P-3 and P-4. No witness from the Department has come in the witness box to controvert the allegations of the plaintiff. So much so, even the plaintiff had stated, while appeared in the witness box, that he served a notice under Section 80, CPC, before filing the suit. Further, the plaintiff has averred in para 5 of the plaint as under :-