HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR PBTITIONBR (Defendant N0. 11 RE8PONDENT (Plaintiffsl CIVIL REVISION N0. 63/2009 Rajendra Prasad, son of Shri Brijbhan Tiwari, aged 48 years, rcsident of Bhagwanpur, TehsU Bharatpur, Distdct Koriya(CG). Ys 1. 2. Defendant N0. 2 to S 3. 4. 5. 6. Shyamlal, son of Late Latti, aged 55 years. Rammilaa, son of Late Latti, aged 60 years. Botii residents of Bhagwaapur, TehsU Bharatpur, Distdct Koriya (CG). Manager, ZUa Shahkad Bhunii Vikas Baak Maiyadit, Ambikapur, District Sm^uja (CG). Sales Officer, Zila Shahkari Bhuim Vikas Bank Maryadit, Branch Jaaakpur, District Koriya(CG). Assistaat Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Anibikapur, District Siirguja (CG). State of C.G. through the CoUector, Koriya (CG). PBTITION UNDBR SBCTION 115 OF THE CODB OF CIVIL PRpCEDURB, 1908. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant. Shri Sameer Behar, P.L. for the State/respondent N0. 6. ORAL- ORDER (Passedoa 22/6/2009) 1. Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondents No. 3 to 5 are public Officer and before filing any suit against them respondents No. 1 85 2 they have not sen^ed with a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code') and also not served any notice to respondent No. 6/8tate in absence of such mandatory requirement of Section 80 of the Code the present suit is not maintainable. Application/objection has been filed by the applicant but same has not been considered by the Court below on the ground that respondents No. 3 to 5 are 6, different body and respondent No. 6 is a formal parity against whom no relief has been claimed. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance in the matter of Coal Mines Provident Fund Coxnmissioner Vs. Ramesb Chander Jha reported in^AJR 1990 S.C. 648 in which Apex Court has held that Officer temporarily posted in the department is a public officer and notice under Section 80 of the Code is required. In the instant case civil suit has been filed against some private persons and Manager, Sales Officer and Assistant Registrar i.e. against the post but no suit have been filed against any public Officer in respect of any officer is at purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. Applicant and respondents has not made any allegation that these posts have been occupied by the persons temporarily respondent N0. 6 is a formal parity against no relief has been claimed. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Section 17 of Section 2 of the CPC defines the public serv^ant and clause (g? of Section 2 of the CPC defines public servant and according to the definition the respondents No. 3 to 5 are public Officer. The allegation of the plaint prima facie reveals that this is a suit against the post and not against any officer concemed. On the basis of plaint and the objection raised by the applicant, Court below has dismissed the application and at this stage Court below has not committed any illegality in dismissing the petition at this 8tage. I do not find any substance in the civil revision. Consequently, this civil revision is dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. However, if present applicant filed his defence and additional material and raised the objection then Court below may consider on the basis of pleading and additional material and decide the same. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma judge '^