1 4 ao 847.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 847 OF 2010 Pravin Balkrishna Gupta ..Appellant. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. S.K.Pathare for the Appellant. Mr. S.N.Gawde, AGP for the Respondent no.1. Mr. G.V.Bhagwat i/b Divekar & Co. for the Respondent n.4. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2 The trial court refused leave to the Plaintiff/Appellant to file the suit without service of notice to the State of Maharashtra under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Paragraph 9 of the plaint and the copy of the notice dated 3rd February, 2009 reveals that the notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was actually issued to the Acquisition Officer, the Additional Collector, Bombay Sub-Urban District, Municipal Corporation 2 4 ao 847.10.doc (Assessment Department) and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority is only contesting party as far as the official Defendants are concerned. As far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned it is a formal party and no specific relief is sought against the State. The authorities, against whom the relief is sought in the suit, were actually served with the notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. In view of this, I find that trial court committed an error in refusing leave under section 80 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of the suit against the State. 3 Therefore, Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Leave is granted under section 80 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code to file suit against the State without service of notice. [ J.H.BHATIA, J. ]