SAKHARAM BHAGWAN PATIL Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question is raised in this suit. The plaintiff, on the 21st July 1911, filed the present suit against the Secretary of State for India, the substance of which is that he complained that by an order, dated so long ago as 1909, by the District Deputy Collector, an officer in the service of the defendant, it was directed that the land which is described in Clause 1 of the plaint belongs to Government and that he (plaintiff) has trespassed upon the said land, and, therefore, he (plaintiff) be ordered to vacate and give possession of the land. It is worthy of note that in that paragraph 3 of the plaint, no mention is made of the year in which that order was passed.

(2.) That being so, it is not necessary to set out the further details of the plaint. But it appears that from 1909, down to about the middle of July 1911, the plaintiff was occupying himself in filing the necessary appeals against the orders of different Government officials with reference to this original order of the District Deputy Collector.

(3.) The point we have to decide is : Is notice necessary for this suit, having regard to the terms of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code? Now, the words of that section, so far as they are material to this case, are as follows: No suit shall be instituted against the Secretary of State for India in Council, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of, a Secretary to the Local Government, or the Collector of the District, in the case where the suit is filed against the Secretary of State for India.