Appeal No 1005 of 1965
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 24 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No 205 of 1950
EC Agarwala and PC Agarwala for the appellant
VA Seyid Muhammad and SP Nayar for respondent No 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J
The only question that arises for decision in this appeal by certificate is whether the High Court is right in holding that the notice issued by the appellant plaintiff under section 80 Civil 451 Procedure Code is defective and therefore the suit is not maintainable
The plaintiff dispatched on July 29 1947 certain copper articles from Gujranwala through North Western Railway to a place called Aghawanpur near Moradabad
That consignment never reached the destination
Consequently the plaintiff claimed a sum of Ps 13880 as damages
The learned Civil Judge Moradabad who tried the suit decreed the plaintiffs claim in a sum of Rs 102069 with interest at six per cent from 15th August 1947 till the date of realisation
As against that decision the union of India went up in appeal to the High Court of Allahabad
The decree of the trial court was assailed on several grounds one of them being that the notice issued under section 80 Civil Procedure Code is invalid
The High Court accepted the contention of the Union of India that the notice in question is invalid but rejected the other pleas advanced on its behalf
It accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the sole ground that the notice issued did not comply with the requirements of section 80 Civil procedure Code
It is not disputed that at the relevant time the plaintiff carried on his business at Gujranwala under the name and style of Raghunath Das Mulkhraj
He was the sole proprietor of that concern
He sent several notices to the concerned authorities demanding compensation for his goods lost in transit
It is not necessary to refer to all the notices issued by the plaintiff
It is sufficient for our purpose if we consider the legality of the last notice sent by him viz on June 19 1948
If that notice is valid then undoubtedly the suit is maintainable
The notice in question reads thus From Ms Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj Co
Dr Khamani Singh Katghar Gan Khana Moradabad
To The General Manager East Indian Railway Calcutta
A notice like this has already been given to the Secretary Central Government of India New Delhi and now it is being given to you according to Amendment in the procedure code
We have the honour to serve you with the following notice under section 80 Civil Procedure Code
The facts leading upto the said notice are as follows 1
That we are the refugees of Gujranwala West Punjab and now residing in Katghar Gari Khana Moradabad
452 2
That under RR No 550240 dated 29th July 1947 Ex Gujranwala to
Agwanpur weighing 52 bundles 73 mds
29 seers were booked from Gujranwala to Agwanpur
That the aforesaid consignment has not been delivered to us so far due to the Railway s negligence misconduct and gross carelessness
That the non delivery of the said consignment we have suffered a great loss and damage
That on 14th October 1947 we preferred a claim against the Railway and claimed the sum of Rs 125541 for the loss non delivery of the aforesaid goods
Price of the goods  
Rs 10206 9 Our profit 20 thereon  
Rs 2041 5 Our damage for the much money locked up  1 pm
Rs 306 3 TOTAL 
Rs 12554 1 6
That the Chief Commercial Manager E 1
Railway by his letter No A 2519647 dated 25th November 1947 acknowledged the receipt of our claim
That thereafter nothing was heard from him in spite of our several reminders and requests for early payment
That so far the goods have not been delivered to us nor our claim in respect thereof settled and paid
Hence this notice is served to you
That now we claim the sum of Rs 133110 as detailed above inclusive damage  1 till 26th June 1948
That the cause of action for this notice and the suit to be filed here after arose at Moradabad UP which is the District where the goods ought to have been delivered on or about 13th August 1947 when the same should have been delivered and thereafter on the various dates mentioned in the correspondence and on the expiry of the period of this notice
That we nope and will request you to please pay to us the amount of the claim at an early date and not to force us to go to the law courts in our present and 453 plight in which case you and the Railway will be responsible and liable for all our costs and damages
Yours faithfully For Ms Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj Sd Raghunath Dass Proprietor Dated Copy to Chief Commercial Manager Calcutta The High Court held that the notice in question does not meet the requirements of the law as the person who issued the notice is not the same person who filed the suit
In so deciding it heavily relied on the decision of this Court in SN Dutt vs Union of India
 1  Section 80 Civil Procedure Code requires among other things that the notice must state the name description and place of residence of the plaintiff
It is true that the notice purports to emanate from Ms Raghunath Dass MuLkhraj
It is also true that in the body of the notice in several places the expression we  is used
Further the plaintiff had purported to sign for Ms Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj
But at the same time he signed the notice as the proprietor of the concern Raghunath Dass Mulkhrai
That is a clear indication of the fact that Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj is a proprietary concern and the plaintiff is its proprietor
Whatever doubts that might have been possibly created in the mind of the recipient of that notice after going through the body of the notice as to the identity of the would be plaintiff the same would have been resolved after going through the notice as a whole
In the plaint the plaintiff definitely stated that he was carrying on his business under the name and style of Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj meaning thereby that the concern known as Raghunath Das Mulkhraj is a proprietary concern and the name given to it is only a trade name
He had also stated in the plaint that he had given a notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code
In the written statement filed on behalf of the Dominion of India the validity of the notice issued was not challenged
Regarding the notice in question
the only averment in the written statement is that found
in paragraph 8 therein and the same That the suit is
barred by section 80 CPC as no notice under that section appears to have been served on this administration
 From this it follows that the Dominion of India did not challenge the validity of the notice
It is no more in dispute that the notice 1  454 sent by the plaintiff had been served on the authorities concerned
The Union of India did not take the plea that the identical person who issued the notice had not instituted the suit
The object of the notice contemplated by that section is to give to the concerned Governments and public officers opportunity  to reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim if so advised without litigation
The legislative intention behind that section in our opinion is that public money and time should not be wasted on unnecessary litigation and the Government and the public officers should be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the claim made against them lest they should be drawn into avoidable litigations
The purpose of law is advancement of justice
The provisions in section 80 Civil Procedure Code are not intended to
be used as booby traps against ignorant and illiterate persons
In this case we are concerned with a narrow question
Has the person mentioned in the notice as plainsong brought the present suit or is he someone else  This question has to be decided by reading the notice as a whole in a reasonable manner
In Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and anr
vs The Union of India1 this Court observed that while the terms of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code must be strictly complied with that does not mean that the terms of the section should be construed in a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced from common sense
The relevant passage from that judgment is set out below We are constrained to observe that the approach of the High Court to this question was not well founded
The Privy Council no doubt laid down in Bhagchand Dagadusa rs
Secretary of State that the terms of section should be strictly complied with
That does not however mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinised in a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced from common sense
As was stated by Pollock CB in Jones vs Nicholls we must import a little common sense into notices of this kind Beaumont CJ also observed in Chandu Lal Vadilal vs Government of Bombay One must construe section 80 with some regard to common sense and to the object with which it appears to have been passed
 It is proper to expect that the authorities who received the notice would have imported some common sense into it
At any rate they should have done so and we must assume that they did
The fact that they did not object to the validity of the notice in 1   795 455
their pleadings shows that they never considered the person who brought the suit as being someone other than who issued the notice
It is the contention of Mr Seyid Mohammad learned Counsel for the Union of India that the present case falls within the rule laid down by this Court in SN Dutt vs Union of India1
We are not persuaded that it is so
In SN Dutt s case a notice was
sent by a lawyer on behalf of the concern known as SN Dutt  Co The notice in question did not indicate either specifically or by necessary implication that the concern in question is a proprietary concern and SN Dutt was its sole proprietor
Referring to that notice this Court observed The prima facie impression from reading the notices would be that Messrs SN Dutt  Co was some kind of partnership firm and notices were being given in the name of that partnership firm
It cannot therefore be said on a comparison of the notices in this case with the plaint that there is identity of the person who issued the notice with the person who brought the suit
 Further in that case the defendant challenged the validity of the notice right from the beginning
In the present case the Union of India could not have been left with the impression that the notice had been issued on behalf of a partnership firm
There are clear indications in the notice showing that the plaintiff was the sole proprietor of the concern known as Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj
Hence the decision in SN Dutt s case does not govern the case before us
In the result we allow this appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment and decree of the trial court
The Union of India shall pay the costs of the appellant both in this Court as well as in the High Court
GC Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant was the sole proprietor of a business carried on by him under the name and style of Ms Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj
He sent a notice under section 80 CPC on behalf of Ms Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj to the General Manager East Indian Railway Calcutta in connection with a claim for compensation for lost goods
The notice was signed by him as proprietor for Ms Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj 
When he subsequently filed a suit against the Railway its maintainability was challenged on the ground that the notice under section 80 was invalid as there was no identity between the person who sent the notice and the person who filed the suit
The suit was decreed by the trial Court but the plea that the notice was invalid was accepted by the High Court
The appellant with certificate came to this Court
HELD The object of the notice contemplated by section 80 is to give to the concerned Governments and public officers opportunity to reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim if so advised without litigation so that public time and money may not be wasted
The provisions in section 80 Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used as boobytraps against ignorant and illiterate persons
454 B C In the present case although the notice has been sent under the appellant s trade name he had clearly indicated that he signed it as the proprietor of the business
The notice had to be read as a whole and in a manner not divorced from common sense
So read the notice could not have given the Union of India the impression that it was issued on behalf of a partnership concern
The High Court had wrongly held that the notice was invalid
454 H 455 E SN Dutt vs Union of India   distinguished
Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and Anr
vs The Union of India   795 relied on