IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.16 of 2008 1. Jai Prakash Prasad @ Gupta s/o late Thakur Prasad resident of N.H. 28, Krishna Tatij P.S. Gopalganj Ward no.3, Dist. Gopalganj 2. Nawal Kishore s/o late Narain Prasad resident of Purnai Chauk, Nonia Toli Ward no.10 P.S. Gopalganj Dist. Gopalganj Defendants Ist set-Petitioners Versus 1. Bhagwan Prasad S/o late Maya Sah resident of Hariharpur PO Akderwa P.S. and Dist. Gopalganj 2. Kanhaiya Sah s/o late Jag Sah resident of Nawada PO Manikpur P.S. and Dist. Gopalganj Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties Ist set 3.Special Officer Municipality Gopalganj , Dist. Gopalganj 4. Additional Collector, Gopalganj 5. Collector, Gopalganj Defendants-Opposite parties 2nd set ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Shanti Kumar. Advocate -------------- 03 28.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendants Ist set- petitioners challenging order dated 31.10.2007 by which learned Munsif, Gopalganj rejected their application dated 25.04.2007 for dismissing the suit on the question of non-maintainability due to non- compliance of the specific provision of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the sake of brevity) in Title Suit No.187 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party- Ist set for declaration that they were tenants of the suit premises and they can not be evicted by the defendants save and except under the specific provision of law and also for injunction and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and contested. - 2 - 4. However, subsequently defendants 2nd party-opposite parties 2nd set filed an application in the court below that the provision of section 80 of the Code not being fulfilled, the suit was fit to be dismissed. The said application of defendants 2nd party has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 31.10.2007 which has been challenged by the defendants Ist party in the instant civil revision. 5. No doubt notice under section 80 of the Code was sent to the defendants 2nd party on 09.09.2006 and within two days thereafter the suit was filed on 11.09.2006 and the application filed by the plaintiffs under the provision of section 80(2) of the Code for permission to maintain the suit without completion of 60 days as provided in section 80 of the Code was rejected by the learned trial court vide its order dated 13.09.2006 and 15.09.2006, but in the said order the learned court below directed that after lapse of 60 days from the date of sending notice under section 80 of the Code to the Government authorities the suit will be presented and admitted . The said order was never challenged by any of the authorities and accordingly after lapse of 60 days of sending notice dated 09.09.2006 to the defendants under section 80 of the Code the learned trial court admitted the suit on 10.11.2006. 6. It was only thereafter that the said application dated 25.04.2007 was filed by the defendants 2nd set namely the authorities of the State claiming non-maintainability of the suit due to non- compliance of the specific provision of section 80 of the Code which - 3 - has been dismissed by the learned court blow vide its order dated 31.10.2007, which is under challenge in this civil revision. 7. It may be noted in this connection that the State of Bihar and its authorities, who were defendants 2nd party in the suit and had filed application regarding non-maintainability of the suit, had not challenged the impugned order rather private defendants first party have filed the instant civil revision, vehemently challenging the said order claiming it to be in complete violation of sections 80 and 80 (2) of the Code as it was the duty of the court to reject such a suit as not maintainable. 8. From the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and materials on record, it is quite apparent that the application of the plaintiffs under section 80(2) of the Code was rejected by the learned trial court as the suit was filed within two days of the notice sent to the State of Bihar and its authorities under section 80 of the Code but in that order it was directed that after lapse of 60 days from the date of sending said notice the suit will be presented and admitted. The said order having never been challenged by any of the two sets of defendants, it attained finality and accordingly the suit was presented and admitted after lapse of 60 days and was admitted on 10.11.2006. Even the said order dated 10.11.2006 has not been challenged by any of the two sets of the defendants even after their appearance in the suit. 9. The learned court below very carefully considered the entire matter as well as the spirit of section 80 of the Code and has - 4 - come to the conclusion that the object of section 80 of the Code is to advance justice and secure public view by avoiding unnecessary litigation. He has also found that the State of Bihar and its authorities have appeared in the suit after notice to them and they are proceeding with the case which clearly shows that they got proper knowledge about the claim of the plaintiffs and hence the requirement of section 80 of the Code has duly been fulfilled and thus there was no illegality in admitting the suit nor there was any occasion to dismiss the suit on that ground. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)