Case: Raghunath Dass Vs. Union Of India And Anr

2. The plaintiff despatched on July 29, 1947 certain copper articles from Gujranwala through North Western Railway to a place call Aghawanpur near Moradabad. That consignment never reached the destination. Consequently the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs, 13,880/- as damages. The learned Civil Judge, Moradabad, who tried the suit decreed the plaintiffs claim in a sum of Rs. 10,206/9/with interest at six per cent from 15-8-1947 till the date of realisation. As against that decision, the Union of India went up in appeal to the High Court of Allahabad. The decree of the trial Court was assailed on several grounds one of them being that the notice issued under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code is invalid. The High Court accepted the contention of the Union of India that the notice in question is invalid but rejected the other pleas, advanced on its behalf. It accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the sole ground that the notice issued did not comply with the requirements of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code.

Reasoning: It is true that the notice purports to emanate from M/s. Raghunath Dass Mulkraj. It is also true that in the body of the notice in several places the expression we is used. Further the plaintiff had purported to sign for M/s. Raghunath Dass Mulkraj. But at the same time he signed the notice as the proprietor of the concern "Raghunath Dass Mulkraj". That is a clear indication of the fact that "Raghunath Dass Mulkraj" is a proprietary concern and the plaintiff is its proprietor. Whatever doubts that might have been possibly created in the mind of the recipient of that notice, after going through the body of the notice as to the identity of the would-be plaintiff, the same would have been resolved after going through the notice as a whole. In the plaint, the plaintiff definitely stated that he was carrying on his business under the name and style of "Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj" meaning thereby that the concern known as "Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj" is a proprietary concern and the name given to it is only a trade name. He had also stated in the plaint that he had given a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Dominion of India, the validity of the notice issued was not challenged7. From this it follows that the Dominion of India did not challenge the validity of the notice. It is no more in dispute that the notice sent by the plaintiff had been served on the authorities concerned. The Union of India did not take the plea that the identical person who issued the notice had not instituted the suit8. The object of the notice contemplated by that section is to give to the concerned Governments and public officers opportunity to reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised without litigation. The legislative intention behind that section in our opinion is that public money and time should not be wasted on unnecessary litigation and the Government and the public officers should be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the claim made against them lest they should be drawn into avoidable litigations. The purpose of law is advancement of justice. The provisions in Section 80, Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used as boobytraps against ignorant and illiterate persons.In this case we are concerned with a narrow question. Has the person mentioned in the notice as plaintiff brought the present suit or is he someone else? This question has to be decided by reading the notice as a whole in a reasonable manner10. It is proper to expect that the authorities who received the notice would have imported some common-sense into it12. In the present case the Union of India could not have been left with the impression that the notice had been issued on behalf of a partnership firm. There are clear indications in the notice showing that the plaintiff was the sole proprietor of the concern known as "Raghunath Dass Mulkraj." Hence the decision in S. N. Dutts case does not govern the case before us.