SODHI SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. PEPSU STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Sodhi Shamsher Singh whose suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000/-as damages instituted against the State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union has been dismissed on the preliminary ground that a valid notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, had not been served,

(2.) In the plaint filed on 28th of January, 1950, it was stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the plaintiff sent two notices of his intention to sue. The first one was sent on 23rd of July, 1948, addressed to the Prime Minister of Patiala, and Patiala and East Punjab States Union. It appears that on that date the new State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union was yet in the process of formation and it actually came into existence on 20th of August, 1948. To avoid any objection that the notice had not been served on the right person, the plaintiff sent another notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 2nd of August, 1949. This was addressed to the Prime Minister, Patiala and East Punjab States Union under the signatures of the counsel for the plaintiff, and a copy of it was sent to the Chief Secretary, Patiala and East Punjab States Union, Patiala, also signed by the counsel. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State on 29th of March 1950, the second preliminary objection was in these words:-

(3.) The earlier notice of 23rd of July 1948 (Exhibit P. A./1) which is admitted to have been received in the office of the Prime Minister, Patiala, on 28th of July, 1948, had been discarded by the trial Judge on the ground that it was not addressed to the Prime Minister of Patiala, who still remained the competent authority to receive it before the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union on 20th of August, 1948. In the opinion of the trial Judge, the original copy of the second notice dated 2nd of August, 1949, though it reached the Prime Minister's office, has not been proved. It has been admitted by Hari Bhagwan P. W. 1 that this notice was received from the counsel of Sodhi Shamsher Singh through the Law Department, Patiala, and was sent to the Excise Superintendent on 2nd of September, 1949, for report. This witness further deposed that the original notice is not traceable, A copy of the notice, which is marked Exhibit P. A., sent to the Chief Secretary of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union has been admitted in evidence and it has been stated by B. Madan Lal, clerk of the Law Department, as P. W. 2, that this notice was received in the office of the Legal Remembrancer from the Home Department on 11th of August, 1949. This notice has been rejected by the trial Judge on the ground that it has not been duty proved. The reasoning adopted by the Court and the learned Advocate-General, who has appeared for the respondent in support of this conclusion, amounts to a piece of casuistry which it is not possible to accept. It is suggested that the counsel who sent this notice should have come forward to State that he had actually despatched it or someone should have deposed that he saw the counsel appending his signatures to this notice. It seems to have been overlooked that Sodhi Shamsher Singh, plaintiff, as P. W. 4, deposed that the second notice was sent under his instructions by Mr. Prithvi Raj Advocate, Kapurthala. In our opinion, this affords ample proof of the notice whose receipt in the Government Departments has never been denied at any stage. A notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is intended to fulfil the object of informing the government concerned generally of the nature of the suit intended to be filed. Its reception by the authority empowered to receive it is to all intents and purposes a sufficient compliance of the letter and spirit of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has never been the case of the respondent that the copy of the notice (Exhibit P. A) did not Contain the particulars of the dispute which is the subject-matter of the plaint filed by Sodhi Shamsher Singh. The argument of the Advocate-General, therefore, that the mere receipt of a notice by a Department of the State cannot be linked with the notice which is said to have been despatched by the plaintiff, is wholly devoid of force and involves a degree of refinement to which it is not possible to accede. In the view which we take about the second notice which admittedly was addressed to the right person it is not necessary to decide the technical argument raised by the Advocate-General that the first notice (Exhibit P. A./1) should have been addressed in the first instance to the Prime Minister of Patiala, and after the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union to the new constitutional entity which had been brought about after 20th of August, 1948. We feel bound to say in the context that it did not behave the respondent to have raised and persisted with this plea in respect of the notices which admittedly had been received in the concerned Departments of the State Government.