• • 229

GHANSHYAM OASS ANO OTHERS

v. •

DOMlNION <:1F INDIA AND OTHERS

March 20, 1984 -

[D.A. l>ESAI, A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI,'.JJ.] ,

Contract with Government and claims arisillg therefrom-Contractor issues notice to Gove, rnment under section 80 C.P.C. (before the amendment in 1976) hut dles before the instit!on of the suit-The legal representatives of the contractor institutes the suit on the basis of the notice issued by the contractor-Whether a fresh notice under section 80, C.P.C. is necessary and for want of such_ a fresh

notice the suit itself ii not maintainable-Code of Civil Procedure (Act Vof 1908) section 80 (as is stood before the Amendment Act of 1976), Scope of.

The plaintiff's father Seth Lachhman Dass Gupta entered into a contract with the Governor General-in-Council for the suppJy of CharcoaJ tO the Military Supply Depot, Agra and received payments for the same at the contractual rate froln time to time. Tfi.e contract contained an escalation clause viz. cl. 8 to the *' effect 1hat in case the Price of charcoal was increased bY more than 10% of the stipulated rate during the subsistence of the contract', the contractor would be entitled to the price at the higher rate. During the periOd of..pie contract, the rate of charcoal went up continuously. The military aul!'"orities paid at the enq, anced rate for the part of supplies w.hi!C for the rest they refused to pay more than the contractual rate. He accordingly set.ied a notice to the Government under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 J!laking a claim for payment of a sum of Rs. 20, 119.so p. in terms of clause 8 of the contract beint1 the dill'erence between the enhanted rate and the contractual rate for the supplies paid 'for.

But before.he could bring tl).e si.Iit against tbe Government," he died. Thereupon_, the respondents brought a suit as his legal heirs and successo1s.claiming the amount. , the defendants contested the claim inter alia on 'the ground that the notice given by Seth Lachhman Dass could not eoure for the benefit of the plain tiff's nd. therefore the suit was bad for want of notice under s. 80 of the Code.

The Court of first inftance held that no further notice under s. 80 was necessary as the notice served by the plaintiff's father Seth Lachhman Dass must enure to their benefit.

On appeal, the High Court reversed his decision on the point and held that the notice given by the plaintiff's father was insufficient and wns not a valid notice under s. 80 of the Code insofar as the plaintiff'• were concerned. Against the judgment, the plaintiff's preferred an appeal by special leave.

Allowing the appoal, th• Court

~30 •

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984} 3 s. C.R. ·,,(

HELD : 1. The question as· to ... whether a, notice under s. 80 is valid or not is a question of judicial construction. S. 8Q of the Code is but a part of the Procedure Code passed to pro't'ide the regulation and machinery, by -means of wblbh the. courts may do justice between the parties. It is therefore merely a part of the adjective law and deals. with procidure alone and must be interpreted in a manner so as_ o subserve and advag.ce the cause of justice rather than to defCat it. As far as possible, no Proceedings in a court of law should be aUowed to -be defeated on mere technicalities. This is the principle oil -which OQ.rs laws of procedure are based. [238A, 239GH, 240A-CJ

2. The whole object of serving a notice. under s. 80 is to give the Government Sufficient warning of the case which is going to be instited against it' and that the GOvemment, if it so wished ca.n settle the claim without litigation or afford restitution without recourse to a court of law. Though the terms of s. 80 . have to. be strictly complied with, thai does not mean that the notice should be scrutinised in a pedantic manner di.vorced from COlJlmon sense. The point to be con1idere'd is whether the notice gives suffiCient information as to the nature Or the claim such as would enable the recipient to avert the litigation. If the notice substantially fulfills its work of intimating the parties concerned generally of the y.., nature of the suit intended to be filed, it would be sufficient compliance of the . section. While interpreting ttie pfe .. amended Section the courts must have due regatd to the change in. law brought about by subs. (3) of s. 80, which shows legislative acceptance of the rule of substantial compliance instead of strict compliarice. [240DE, 242C.E]

Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah relied on •.. •

3. In the present case the requirement of s. 80 that there inust be identity I between tuse of RC?tion and the ielief claimed in the notice as well as in the ~·- plaint, is fulfilled.

A• resards the requirement of identity of the person who issues the notice with the ycrson who brings the suit, in this case the notice contained the name of the original claimant i.e. the father of the plaintiffs. The notice reached the concerned department of the Government where the Govern .. ment bad opportunity to examine the nature of the claim and decide whethi:r it should accept or contest the claim. The conce_rnCd Government authorities served a J:eply on the plaintiff'; father that his claim was not acceptable. There ... after he died and his right to file the suit for enforcement of the claim having devolved upon his heirs i.e. the plaintiff's, the plaintiffs filed the suit for enforce.. .{_~ ment of the same claim: In the circumstances, . if s. 80 is held to ha"Ve '"" not been compliCd With, as done by the Hiah Court, great injustice would _be done to the plaintiffs in the matter of filiD.g suits to the Government inasmuch as in case-of insistence on fresh notice, the period of limitation to file the suit would expire in the meantime. Such a situation is not intended b; t the Code.

Thus the requirement of s. 80 was clearly fulfilled in this case but the High Court having allowed the technical plea of the defendants, the plaintiffs have been deprived of their legitimate claim for at least 35 years.

[238DH, 239A-C, 240GH],..- -'-

ff S.N. Dutt v. Union of India, (1962] 1 $.C.R. 560; Mahadev Dattatraya Rajshri v. Secretary of State for India, [1930] 32 Botn. L.R. 604; and. Bachchu Singh v. Secretary of State for India in Cuoncll; [1902) 25 I.L.R. 1.87, overruled.

clii-NsmAM v. ooMINroN oF rnn1A.(Sen, J.)

, . . • ; I'

Raglzuth Dass V. Unio,;-of India, (1969} I S.c.R: 450; Union of Iridia v.

Jee'wan -Rilm A.I.R. i958. S._C. 905; State Of Madras v. C.P. Agencies~ A.I.R. "

1960. S.C. 1309 and Amar Nath , Gogra v. Union.of India, [19~4] I S.C.R. 651, -affirmed.

Bh{igchand rac'adusa v. Secretary of State for.India in CounCi/, '[19211 I.A: 338; / T./-. tr,-C"J~" hettiar v. Governmeitt of the. Provif:ce of Jfadras [1947] ·- I.A. 7f: and Govern;,, en1 of the Provice of Bombay v. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia - (1949] 76 I.A. 57; referred to. ' · ·

C1ViL. APPELLATE JUR!SDICTrON: Civil' Apperu No. 82 of 1971.

 From Judgment and Decree dated 26.2.65 of Allahabad High. · c .

Court in first appeal Nn. 457 of 1952. ' . .

J.P. Goyal and S.K. Jain for the appellants.·

V.C. Mahajan and A. Subhashini for the espondents.

D The Judgement of the Court was , delivered by ·

. ' SEN, J. This appeal on certificate brought from .the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court datedFebruary 26, 1965 reversing the judgment .and decree of the Civil Judge, Agra dated August 25,. 1952 and dismissing the plaintiff~' suit for recovery of E Rs. 26,000 raises , a question of some importance upon s.80' of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . , · ·

The facts giving rise.to this appeal may be shortly tated. On .. , November 12, 1949, the plaintiffs Ghanshyam Dass .and his two ' . • minor. brothers Shree Ram and Mohan Lal brougat the suit out' of which this ppeal arises; in the. Court of the .Civil Judge, Agra for. recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,000 against the Dominion of India . . through the Defence Secretary, New Delhi. . It was' pleaded that ·. .

their late father Seth Lachman Dass Gupta entered into a contract • with the• Governor General-in-Council for the supply of charcoal , to the Military Supply Depot at Agra during the period from' April I, 1943. to March 31, 1944. In pursuance thereof, lie made .. necessary supplies and• received payments for the same at the con-· .

tractual rates from time to time. •It was pleade<I that the contract - . contained an escalation clause viz: clause 8, to the effect that in case ·

the price of charcoal increased by more than iO% of the tipulated rate during the subsistence or'the contract, the contractor would be . entitled to the price at the higher rate,' It was alleged that from

J.,

. c

sUPRllME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.a.il.

lhe date of-the Contract, the rate of charcoal went up continuously to 44.8% in July, August and September 1943, 93.1% in October, November and December 1943 and 82.7% in January, February and March 1944. Accordingly Seth Lachman Dass made a demand for payment of price at the increased rate. The military authorities paid at the enhanced rate for par~ of the supplies while for the - rest they refused to pay at more than the contractual rate. Seth Lachman Dass served a notice Ex. A-8 on tb, e Dominion of Jfdia through the Defence Secretary under s.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It appears tliat before his death,' on or about September 15, 1948 he received a letter from the military.authorties rejecting his claim fo.r payments at the enhanced rate but before he could institute any suit he died on October 28, 1949. - .'ifhereafter, on November 12, 1949 the plaintiffs who are his three sons, brought the suit as his legal heirs and successors claiming the amount. The defendants contested the claim inter a/ia on the ground that the notice Ex. A-8 given by Seth Lachman Dass could nofenure for the benefit of the plaintiffs and therefore the suit was bad for want of a notice "under s.80 of the Code. The learned Civil Judge, however, held that no further notice under s.80 was necessary as the notice Ex. A-8 served by the plaintiffs father Seth Lachman Dass must enure for their benefit.

He found that the plaintiffs were entitled in terms of clause 8 of the contract to receive a sum of Rs. 20,?lO.SOp. being the difference between the enhanced rate and the contractual rate for the supplies paid for and accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' claim to that extent. But on appeal the High Court, his defision on the pointlwas reversed upon the .view that the notice Ex. A~8 .given by the plaintiffs' father was insufficient and was not a valid notice under s.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar as the plaintiffs were concerned.

The short question involved in this appeal is whether the notice Bx. A-8 given by the iplaintiffs' father Seth Lach man Dass Gupta before his death under s.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 would enure for the benefit of'the plaintiffs.

Section 80 of. the Code as it stood on the gate of the institu tion or 'the suit, insofar as material, is reproduced below :

"80~ l'{ptice: No suit shall be instituted against (the Government) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to . be done such public officer in his official

' .

. .

' )

l •

i f I f I ...---.,:: ,--. / I

GHA.NSflYAM v. DOMINION OF INDIA, (Sen, J.) 233

capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice A in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of-

(a). in the case of suit against the Central Government ............ a Secretary to that Government ;

••• • •• • •• • ••

and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plailltiff and the relief which he

claims ; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such C notice has been so delivered or left."

In the celebrated case of Bhagchand Dagadusa & .Ors. v.

Secretary of $tate for India in Council & Ors1., the Judicial Committee of. the Privy Council held that this section is express, explicit an mandatory and it admits of no implications or exceptions.

The words of Viscount Sumner delivering the judgment of the Privy Council have become classical :

''Section 80 is express, explicit and mandatory, and it admits of. implications or exceptions. A suit in which' (inter alia) an injunction is prayed still "a suit'' within the words of the section, and to read any qualification into it is an encroachment on the function of legislation. Considering how . long these and similar words have been read throughout most of the Courts in India in their literal sense, it is reasonable to suppose that the section has not been found to work injustice. but, if this is not so, it is a matter to be rectified by an amending Act.':

The Privy Council rejected the contention put forward before them that the section deals with mere procedure and held that the requirements of s.80 are to be strictly complied with and are applicable to all forms of action and all kinds of relief. It further held . that s.80 imposes a statutory and unqualified obligation upon the Court and in .the absence of compliance with s.80, the suit was not maintainable, either as to the declaration sought or injunction prayed for.

(I) (1927] 54 I.A. 338.

if:. E

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3. s.c.il..

Earljer, in-ome cases, a liberal construction was put upon the section and it was held that a notice is sufficient ifit substantially fulfils its objection in informing the parties concerned of the nature of the suit to be filed, and that a notice is not invalid merely because it .is given by two out offhree plaintiffs. But since the Privy Council judgment in Bhagchand's case, supra, strict compliance with the . terms of s.80 has been enforced a.nd a notice given by one. of two plaintiffs has been held to be insufficient.

Again, in a case where the plaintiffs' father gave notice. and then plaintiffs filed a. suit after the father's death, the notice given byihe father in respect of the same cause of action was held insfficient :Mahadev Dattatraya Rajarshi v.

Secretary of Swe for India1 following Buchan Sigh v. Secretary of State.•

It is plain from the terms of s.81) that the notice inust fulfil the req]Ji.rements set out therein., It is essential th.at the notice must state the names, descriptions and places of residence of all the plaintiffs. A notice must be such as. to enable the addresse or the recipient to indentify the claimant.

In Val/ayan Chettiar& Ors. v.

The Government of the Province of Madras & Anr'. Lord Simo.nds delivering the jildgment of the Privy Council referred to the observa tions of Lord Sumner in Bhagchand's case that s.80 is explicit and. mandatory and admits of l\O implications or exemptions, and .observed that :

"There should be identity of ihe person who issues the notice and who brings the suit. To hold otherwise would be to admit an implication' or exception for which there is no F justification."

There, the question was whether a suit brought by two plaintiffs was competent when notice .under s.8.0 was given by only one of them. Tile Privy Council. having regard to the mandatory requirements of .s.80 of the Code held that there was no valid notice and aotordingly upheld the judgment of the High Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit. So also in Governmeni of the Province Bombay

v. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia. & Ors.,• the Privy Council reiterated the same principles where no notice had been served under s.80 specify-

(I) (1930) 32 Bom.L.R. 604.

(2) !LR (1902) 25 All. J87.

(3) [1947] 74 I.A. 223.

(4) [1949] 76 I.A. S1 .

• A.

' l

1-,

.- .

. .. .

•.... GitANSNYM! v. DOMINION OF INriL\ (Sen, J.) . 235

: -- t • • - ' • i ing t11c n3mos and addresses of all the trustees and thertfore the p:cyisions of the section had not been complied with and it was

ac.; urdingly held that the suit was incompetent.... · . . : . . - . . . . . . . . . ' , . . . . ' As to the requirement tha.t the notice .must state the cause of . action and the reliefs,· Claimed, there is a large body of decisions laying .down• that a notice under the section should be heid to be . sufficient if it substantially fulfils its object in informing the partjes. concerned ofthe nature of the suit to be filed.

In consonance with this. view, this Court in Dhian Singh Sabha Singh & Anr, v." Union of . India,1 Union of India v. Jeewan .Ram', State. of Madras v. C.P. ·

Ageni:ies' and Amar Nath v.

Unio~ of India' has held that though the terms of the section have io be . sfrictly complied with, that does ., not mean that ihe D.otice shou.ld be scrlltinized ill 'a pedantic manner ,

oi in a manner divorced from common sense. On this principle, it has. been held. thafnotice. which states the cause of action and the relie.fs described in the annexed copy' of the ptaint (which forms part of the . notice) 'though defective _in form, complies substantially with the

section. The point to be CO!lsidered is whether the notic.e gives suffi- eient information as to the nature of the claim such as ould.enable

the recipient to avert the litigation. The relevant passage from the judgment in Dhain Singh Sabha. Singh' s case, supra, is set' out below:

.. . "We are constrained to observe that the approacb of . the. igh Court to this quetion "."a~ not .well founded. The

Privy Council no doubt -fa:.d down m Bhagchand Dagadusa v.

Secretaty of State (1927) LR. 54 LA 338) that the terms of this section should be strictly complied with. That does not however mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutini- •

zed in a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced from. common sense: As was stated by_ Pollock C.B .. in , -. Jones v. Nicholls (1844) 153 E.R. 149 "We must import a . little common sense into notices of this 'kind." Beaumont . C.J: also obseed in Chandu Lal Vadilal v. Govrnment of Bombay, ILR (1943) Born. 128 "One must construe sectio~ "so with some regard to common . sense and to the object with which it appears to have been passed "

, (1) [1958] SCR 781.

(2) AIR 1958 SC 905.

(3) AIR 1960 SC 1309. (4) [1964] l SCR 657.

-..

SUPREME co\JR r REPoR rs r1p84j 3 s.c.il.

The question as to whether notice under s.80 was invalid for want of identity .of, the plaihtiffs , Pirectly arose in the case of S.N.

Datt v. {Inion of India'. There, a no)ice was served by the appellant who wa.s the sole proprietor of a business styled S.N. Dutt & Co., (iu the name of S:N. Dutt & Co.) and thereafter he filed a snit against the Union ofindia describing t11e. plaintiff as "Surendra Nath Dutt sole proprietor of a business carried on under the name and style ofS.N. Ontt & Co.". This Co1utupheld the decision ofthe Calcutta High Court dismis_sing the plaintiff's suit holding that the person who issued the notice was not the same as the person who filed the suit.

The contentiol\ that the appellant was carrying on business nnder an assumed name arid therefore the notice was valid as S.N. Dutt & Co.

as merely the name and style of the business which he was carrying on, was rejected. The Court held that since no snit could be filed by $.N. Dutt & Co. in that name as it was not a partnership firm, it could not give a valid and legal notice in that name, and a valid notice could only be given in the name of S.N. Dutt. The decision merely reiterates the t\ile laid down by this Court in Bhagchand that "section 80, according to its plain meaning, requires that there should be identity of the person who gives the notice with the person :-\'ho brings the suit". The Court distinguished the decisions in ' Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and C.P. Agencies on the ground that the Court was dealing with defect in describing the cause of action and the relief claimed and where it concerns the relief and the cause of action, it may be necessary to use common sense to find out whether s.80 of the Code has beeri complied with, and stated :

. ' "But where it is a question of the name of the plaintiff, there is in our opinion (little scope for the use of common sense,) for either the name of the person suing is there in the notice or if is not. No amount of common sense will put the name of the plaintiff there, if it is not there."

In the case of Raghunath Dass. v Union of India & Anr.• the same question arose but the Court struck a discordant note there.

There, the notice emanated from M/s Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj and in the body of the notice at several places the expression "we" was used. Further, the plaintiff had purported to sign for M/s Raghunath Dass.Mulkhraj but at the same time he signed the notice as proprietor of M/ s Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj. The Court held

'(!) [1962) I SyR 5§0.

<2> [19691 t s; c.R. 450

- -<

• GHANSHYAM v. DOMINION OF INDIA (Sen, J.) 237

that that was a clear indication of the fact that M/s Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj was a proprietary concern and the plaintiffs was its proprietor. In repelling the contention kthat there was no identity of the person who gave the notice with the person who filed the suit the Court observed :

"Whatever doubts that might, have been possibly created in the mind of the recipient of the notice, after going through the bocly 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."

There, the plaintiff had averred in the plaint that he was carrying on his business under an assumed name and style of M/s ' Raghunath Dass Mulkhraj meaning thereby that the concern was a proprietary concern and that the name given to it was only a trade name.

He had also stated ip the plaint that he had given a notice under s.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 challenged. Regarding the hotice in question there was only an averinent in the written statement that suit was barred by s.80 of.the Code as no nolice under that section appears to have been served on the Administration. Ii:i repelling the contention that the suit was bad for want of notice under s.80 of the Code, the Court said:

"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 onr 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 opport!Pity to examine the claim made against them lest they should be drawn into avoidable litigations. The purpose of law is .advanceme.nt of justice. The provisions in s.80, Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used as boo'\Jytraps against ignorant and illiterate persons. In this case we are concerned with a narrow question. Has the person mentioned in the notice s " plaintiff brought the present suit or is he someone else ? T1:is

qustion has to be decided by reading the notice as a whole m

11 reasonable mannef,"

G . ,.

138 SUPREME COUltT REPORTS

[1984] 3 S.C.R.

 ·, In the ultimate analysis, the question as to whether a ncJtlae undeu.80 of the Code is valid or not is a question of judicial con struction. The Privy Council and this Court have applied the rule of strict compliance in dealing with the. question of identity of the person who issues the notice with the person who brings the suit. This

' . . , .

Court has 4:iowever adopted the rule of substantial compliance in ·· deali!Jg with the requirement that there must be identity between the cause of action and the reliefs claimed in the notice as well as in the plaint. As already stated, the Court has held that notice under this section should be held to be sufficient if it substantially fulfils its object of informing t.he parties concerned of the nature of the suit to be filed. . On this principle, it has been held that though the terms of the section have .to be strictly complied with, that does not mean that the notice should be scrutinized in a pedantic manner divorced. from common sense. The point to be considered is whether the notice gives sufficient information as to the natur.e of the claim such as would the recipient to avert the litigation.

Jn the present case, in the notice Ex. A8 the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff Seth Lachman Dass, the father of the plaintiffs, was given but unfortunatory before filing the suit he died and thereafter within the period of limitation the suit was instituted by his sons on the basis of the said notice. The notice Ex. A-8 undoubtedly fulfils the requirement of s.80 insofar as the cause of action and the elief claimed are concerned as they are absolutely the same as set out in the plaint: As stated in• Dhian Singh Sabha Singh, the notice must substantially fulfil its work of intimating the parties conerned generally of the nature of the suit intended to be filed and if it does sq, it would be sufficient compliance of the section. as to the requirement that it should state the name, descriptibn and place of residence of the plaintiff, there must be identity of the person who issues the notice with the person who brings the suit

_Now . so far as the name and description of the plaintiff are concerned, the notice gives the name as Seth Lachman Dass Gupta.

Thenotice Ex. A-8 duly, reached the cuncerned department and they dealt with the notice. It is not that the Government had no .. opportunity to examine the nature of the claim and decide whether its should accept or contest the. claim. The military authorities ·-served a reply on Seth Lachman Dass before his death that his claim , was not acceptable. There was no other alternative for Seth Lachman pass but to have brought a suit for the enfor~ment of his claim,

•. (

l '-"

...

GHANSHYAM v. OOMINioN OF INDiA (Sen, J,) 239

.) If he could not file a suit due to his death, his right to file the suit devolved upon his heirs i.e. the plaintiffs. If the view taken by the High Court is allowed o stand, great injustice would be done to the litigants in the matter of filing suits against the Government. If fresh notice is insisted upon in such cases, the period of limitation

I . to file a suit may expire in the meantime. Such & situation is not

•. intended by the Code.

• 1 • The authorities relied upon by the High Court in nonsuiting the plaintiffs are of ancient vintage. In Mahadev Dattatraya Rajarshi's case, supra, the Bombay High Court relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Buchan Singh, held that the language .()f s.424 of the Code of 1882, the predecessor of s.80 of the present Code which was substantially in the same terms, was impera" tive and absolutely debarred the Courts from entertaining a suit without complying. with the provisions of the section. In Buchan Sing h's

~ '-< case, supra it was obser; ved by the Allahabad High Court at p.191:

"If we acceded to this contention, it appears to us that we should be adding words to s.424 which find no place in it.

It would be necessary to add after the words "name and

place of abode of the intending plaintiff" some such words as "or of the party through whom such intending plaintiff claims."

~ The Court of first instance here tried to distinguish the decision

! ,1..

' in Buchan Singh .on the ground that.the word "intending" appearing in s.424 of the 1882 Code had. been omitted from s.80 of the present

Code, and therefore the word "plaintiff" should be construed in a generic sense. The High Court however following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mahadev Dattaraya Rajarshi held that. the notice must contain the name of the actpal plaintiff who could bring "" the. suit_ adding that "the notice must be given by .the person who becomes the piaintiff and by no other''. We are afraid, that is taking too technical a view of the matter:

S.80 of the Code is but a part of the Procedure Code passed to provide the regulation and machinery, by means of which the Courts may do justice between the parties. It is therefore merely a part of

)'\ the adjective law and deals with procedure alone and must be inter- H preted in a , manner so as to subserve and advance the cause of justice rather th<in to defeat it. In San1vam Sinh v. Election Trih"·

I,:,

SUPREME COURT REPORTS '

(1984] 3 S.C.R.

nal, Kotai'1 & Anr'., Vivian Bose, J. in tis illuminating language dealing with the Code ot' Civil Procedure said : •

"It is procedure, something designed to faciliate.justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed. to trip people up. Too technical !l construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for tire furtherance of justice be used to. frustrate it.

Our laws of procedure are based on the principle that "as far as possible, no proceeding in a court of law should be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities". Jlere, all the requirements of

s.80 of the Code were fulfiled.

Before the suit was brought, the Dominion of India received a notice of claim f1:om Seth Lachman '' Dass. The wpole object of serving a notice under s.80 is to give the Government sufficient warning of the case which is going to be institued againsHt was that the Government, if it so wished, settle the' claim without litigation or afford restitution without recourse to a court of law. That requirement ofs.80 was clearly fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the present case. . .

It is a matter 9f common experience that in a large majority of: cases the' Government or the public officer .concerned make no use of the opportunity afforded by the section. In most cases the notice given under s.80 remains unanswered till the expiration of ; two months provided by the section. It is also clear that in a large number of cases. as here, the Government or the public officer

utilied the section merely to raise technical defences contending "either that no notice had' been •given or that the notice actually given did not comply with the requirements of the &ection. It is unfortunate that the defendants came forward with a technical plea that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiffs, the legal heirs of Seth Lachman Dasi! on the ground that no fresh notice had been given by them. This was obviously a technical plea

calculated to defeat the just claim. Unfortunately, the technical plea so raised prevailed with the High Court with the result that the plain- ' tiffs have been deprived of their legitimate dues for the last 35 years ..

\l)i[l955]J2]S.C.R.l l.

.( f

, '

l >

ditANSHYA.M v, DOMINION OF INDIA (Sen, i.) 241

The Law Commission in the Fourteenth Report, volume 1 on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at p.475 made a recommendation that s.80. of the Code should be deleted. It was stated as follows :

"The evidence disclosed t!Jat in a large majority of cases, the Govrnm:ent or the public officer made no use of the opportunity afforded by the section. Jn most cases the notice given under section 80 remained unanswered till the 'expiry of the period of two months provided by th<;. section.

It was also clear that in a large number of cases, Governments and public officers utilized the section merely to raise technical defences contending either that no notice had been given or that the notice actually given did not comply with the requirements of the section. These technical defences appeared . to have succeeded in a number of cases defeating the just claims of the citizens." ·

Tile Law Commissio.n in the Twenty Seventh Report on the Code at pp;2l-22 reiterated its earlier recommendation for deletion.of s.80 and in the Fifty-Fourth Report at p.56 fully concurred with the recommendatiorrmade earlier. In conformity with the recommenda-. tion of the Law Commission, s.80 bas undergone substantial changes. By s.27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 whieh was brought into effect from February 1, 1977, the existing s.80 qas been re-numbered as s,80(1) and sub-ss.(2) and (3) have been inserted. Sub-s.(2) as inserted has been designed to give . an nrgent and immediate rlief against the Government or the public officer with' the leave of the Court. But the 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 .. Proviso to S\lb:s(2) enjoins that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requireme.nts of sub-s.(1).

Sub-s.(3) as inserted by s.27 of the Code of . Civil Proceddre (Amendment) Act, 197b reads as follows :

"80(3). No suif instituted ag.;.nst the Government or against a public officer in respect of 11ny act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be . .

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1984) 3 S.C.lt

 dismissed merely by reason of, ny error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (I) if irt sch notice-

(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate . authority or the public officer to identify the person erv

ing the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in subsection (!), and

(bJ the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been beeri substaniially indicated,"

By subs.(3), Parliajllent has brought in the rule of substantial . cmpliance. The present suit would be directly covered by sub-s.(3) of s.80 so inti:oduced if the suit had been brought :after February 1,11977, Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, s.97 of the Amendment Act provides that the amendment shall not apply to pending suit and the suits pending on February I, .1977 liave to be dealt as if such •• amendment had not been made. Nevertheless the Courts must . have due regard to the change in law brought about .by sub-s.(3} of s.80 of the .Code introduced .by the Amendment Act w.e.f.

February l, 1977. Such a change has a legislative acceptance of the rule of substantial compliance laid down by this Court in Dhiati Singh Sobha Singh and. Raghunath Dass. As observed in Dhian Singh Sobha Singh's case"supra, . .one must construe s.80 with some regard to common sense and to the object with which it appears to have. been enacted.- The decision in S.N. Dutt v. Union of India's 'case, supra, dues not accord with the view expressed by us and is therefore overruled.

Before parting with the case we consider it necessary to refer to one more aspect. It has frequently come to our notice that the strict construction placed by the Privy Council in Bhagchand' s case, supra, which was repeatedly reiterated in.subsequent cases, has !eel to a peculiar practice in some Courts. Where urgent relief is neceseary the practice adopted. is to file a suit without notice under s,80 and obfaih interim relief and ther.eafter to serve a notice, withdraw the suit and in.stitute a second suit after expiry of the period of th.e notice. We have to express our strong condemnation ofthishighly objectionable practice. We expect that the High Courts will .take necessary steps to put a stop to such practice.

,) ..

-.• ' .

.-'

.J •.

<lHANSHYAM v. DOMINION OF INDIA,(Sen, J,)

The result tberefc>ris that the appeal su¢cds and is allowed.

A The judgmtnt and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court

dated February 26, 1965 are set aside and those of the lear9ed Civil Judge, Agra dated August 25,. 1252 are restored. with costs-through .out. The plaintiffs shall be erttitled to further in.teres\ on the decretal amount at 6% per annum from August 25, 1952, the date of B the decree, pased by the Civil Judge~ Agra; till realization.

S.R Apf¥al allowed.

l" i

-£,'._/_ .;