fF APPELLANT/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No.408 of 2007 Savitri Devi, D/o Muniran, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Champa, Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Through Attorney Holder Gagan Kumar Gupta, R/o Champa, Tahsil & Distt. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Versus 1. Chhatram, S/o Sukhram, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Lachhanpur, Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) {Appeal underSection 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Present: Mr. Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. None present for respondent No.l. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt.Advocate forthe State/respondent No.2. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, 3 ORALJUDGMENT (7-10-2009) 1, Heard on the question of admission and also on I.A.No.l, application for grant oftemporary injunction. 2. Taking into consideration the dismissal of suit as well as of appeal, L do not find any ground for grant oftemporary injunctionat the stage of second appeal. Consequently/I.A.No.l isdismissed. 3. This is second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against the judgment& decree dated 10-8-2007 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir in Civil Appeal No.5 A/2007 affirming the judgmeFft, & decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Janjgir in Civil Suit N0.22A/2003 dated 31-7-2004. 4. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant herein is owner & occupier of the suit land (pond). Gram Panchayat Lachhanpur has filed a ?"^ "•% "51 ^ petition before the Revenue Court through its Sarpanch, res[teqgent No.l herein and the same was dismissed. Revenue record shows that the State is owner of the property and on the basis of aforesaid entry, suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by the appellant against the respondents. The respondents were ex parte before the trial Court and respondent No.l was ex parte before the appellate Court. After affording opportunity of hearing, the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that Gram Panchayat Lachhanpur was necessary party, but the appellant has not impleaded Gram Panchayat Lachhanpur as party and the State Government has been made party without serving any notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C., the same has been affirmed by the appellate Court vide the judgment & decree impugned. 5. I have perused the judgment & decree impugned as also the judgment & decree of the trial Court and record of the Courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the present appeal involves substantial question of law relating to maintainability of the suit and evidentiary value of the un-exhibited documents. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of The State of A.P. v. Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayana Garu (AIR 1965 SC 11) in which it has been held by the Apex Court that in representative suit against Government, compliance of the provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C. by one plaintiff is sufficient compliance. -7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that no substantial question of law is involved for the dedsion ofthis appeal. 8. Admittedly in the present suit, State Government and Gram Panchayat Lachhanpur were necessary party. Section 80 of the C.P.C. creates bar for filing of suit without complying the provisions of Section 80 i.e. issuance of notice to the State Government. The appellant has not issued any notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. to the State Government and has also not made \ Gram Panchayat Lachhanpur as party. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable against Gram Panchayat Lachhanpur'SneLalso against the State Government and the Court below has rightly dismissed the suitand daim ofthe parties. 9. In the matter of The State of A.P. (supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that in case of representative suit against Government, compliance of Section 80 of the C.P.C. by one plaintiff is suffident compliance of the provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C. But the present suit is not filed by the appellant in representative capacity and no notice has been given to the State Government. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substantial question of law for the decision ofthis appeal. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed with costs. 11, Advocate fees as per schedule. _____ Soma Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge