1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8691 OF 2006 M/s.Padmavati N.Group. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.Union of India and others. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.8692 OF 2006 M/s.Padmavati N.Group. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.Union of India and another. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar, for Petitioner. Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Shri.Shailya Deshmukh, for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. 2 DATED: 14th March,2008. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner is a plaintiff. It has filed suits against the Union of India. Both the suits were filed without giving notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. It appears that even an application for dispensing with the notice was not made. The applications for temporary injunction were made, those applications were rejected. Being aggrieved by that order, appeals from order were filed in this Court. The Court found that the trial Court should have considered first the question of dispensing with the notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and then should have considered the applications for temporary injunctions. The Court, therefore, by order dated 29.11.2006 remitted the applications back directing the trial Court to consider the applications for leave to file suit 3 without notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the basis of the amended plaints. The trial Court has decided that applications for leave by order dated 21.12.2006 and has declined the leave and returned the plaint. These are that orders which are under challenge in these petitions. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners is that this court has directed the trial Court to decide the applications for leave on the basis of the averments in the amended plaints, but the trial Court has not considered the averments in the amended plaints and had decided the applications on the basis of unamended plaints. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents submits that when the suit was filed no application for leave to institute suits without notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was made. That applications were made subsequently. He submits that now there is no urgency and therefore, there is no question of dispensing with the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. The learned Counsel submits that no interference in the order is called for. 4 3. After having gone through the rival pleadings and after having heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, in my opinion, the purpose of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code is to put the Government on notice about the impending action. In so far as the present case is concerned, that purpose is completely served because the Government has been served with all the pleadings and it has also filed its replies. Considering that it is the consistent view of the Courts that the provisions of Section 80 of C.P.C. are directory provisions and not mandatory, in my opinion, in view of the facts and circumstances, on this Court finding that the purpose of issuing notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. has been served, leave for institution of the suits without issuing notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. ought to have been granted. In my opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The orders dated 21.12.2006 challenged in the petitions, are set aside. The plaintiff is permitted to institute 5 suits without issuing notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court shall now take up for consideration the applications for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff which was remanded back to it by order dated 29.11.2006 in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Both the petitions are disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) ---