IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 550 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2008 IN IA.442/2008 IN OS.45/2008 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFENDANTS ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETRY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHALAKUDY 5. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PALAPPILLY 6. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.D. ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: ------------- M/S.HARRISON MALAYALAM LIMITED WELLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN. BY SRI NANDAKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.550 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2008. O R D E R Defendants, State of Kerala and the officials, who are the defendants in O.S.No.45 of 2008, are challenging the order dated 8.4.2008, passed by Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, in I.A.No.442 of 2008, an application filed by petitioners to recall the order passed by learned Sub Judge granting leave to respondent/plaintiff to institute the suit without sending notice, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned Government Pleader is that learned Sub Judge should not have granted leave to institute the suit without serving a notice under Section 80(1) of Code of Civil Procedure, as there was no urgency, as only a notice directing payment was issued to the respondent and proceedings are to be taken as provided under Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, and respondent could have instituted the suit after sending a notice under CRP.No.550 of 2008 2 Sub-section (1) of Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Government Pleader also argued that what could be dispensed with under sub-section (2) of Section 80 is only serving of notice and respondent is bound to sent a notice under Section 80(1) of Code of Civil Procedure, and, therefore, learned Sub Judge should have recalled the order earlier granted to the respondent-plaintiff. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent argued that reason for granting leave is stated in the impugned order itself. It was pointed out that direction to the respondent was to pay the amount within 15 days and respondent could not wait till service of notice and then expiry of the notice provided under sub-section (1) of Section 80, and, therefore, learned Sub Judge rightly granted leave to the respondent and it is not to be recalled. Learned Senior counsel also argued that what is dispensed under sub-section (2) of Section 80 is sending of a notice as provided under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code and there is no illegality of irregularity in the impugned order. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure provides sending of notice to the Government and also CRP.No.550 of 2008 3 public officers, in respect of any act purporting to be done by them in their official capacity, until expiration of two months, next after a notice in writing has been delivered or left at their office. Sub-section 2 of Section 80 provides that a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1). It also provides that Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit. The learned Sub Judge getting satisfied with the condition granted leave. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.