IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9150 of 2010 Ram Keshav Prasad Singh S/O Late Baikunth Bihari Singh R/O Vill.- Chak, P.S. Matihani, Distt.- Begusarai, at Present Sarvoday Nagar, Near B.B.H.E. School, Begusarai Versus 1. District Agriculture Officer, Begusarai P.S. and Distt.- Begusarai 2. Agriculture Director, Bihar, Patna 3. State of Bihar through Collector, Begusarai ------------------------ 02. 14.11.2011 Heard Mr. Shivnandan Rai, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Parool Ranjan, Assisting counsel to A.A.G. 4 for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2009 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-1, Begusarai in Money Suit No. 11 of 2004, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for proving the notice sent under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), was rejected. The money suit in question had been filed claming interest against the State, inter alia, on grounds of delayed payment. The plaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner enclosing a copy of the notice sent to the defendant-respondents herein under Section 80 of the Code. As the defendant-respondents herein did appear in the suit and also filed a written statement, the plaintiff- petitioner overlooked the necessity of proving the notice sent to the respondents under Section 80 of the Code. An objection was taken by the defendant in the written statement at paragraph-31 wherein it was stated that the notice under Section 80 was never served upon them and which necessitated the proving of the notice and which 2 prayer of the petitioner before the trial court seeking permission to prove the notice has been rejected. The only circumstance in which the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected is on account that the permission so granted to the plaintiff-petitioner would delay the trial. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record including the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that considering the nature of the suit as well as the fact that the notice sent to the respondents under Section 80 of the Code was filed along with the plaint and had inadvertently not been proved by the plaintiff-petitioner during the course of leading of evidence, the circumstances that any such permission being granted to the plaintiff-petitioner would delay the trial, cannot be a ground for refusal of the same as it could hamper the course of justice. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances the fact that the suit is against the State authority and the authority have entered appearance and have filed written statement, for the interest of justice the plaintiff-petitioner ought to be permitted to prove the notice sent under Section 80 of the Code. For the aforesaid reason the impugned order dated 22.08.2009 passed in Money Suit No. 11 of 2004, by learned Sub- Judge-1, Begusarai is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The trial court would proceed accordingly in accordance with law. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)