Strict compliance with Section 80 CPC: notice in a trade name failed where the suit was filed by the proprietor personally.

Section 80 CPC requires strict compliance, and the notice must identify the same person who later institutes the suit. A notice issued in a trade name cannot satisfy the provision where the plaint is filed by the individual proprietor in his own name unless the trade name is shown to be a legal entity capable of suing. Because the notices here were in the name of "S. N. Dutt & Co." while the suit was filed by the sole proprietor, Surrendra Nath Dutta, the requisite identity between the notice-giver and the plaintiff was absent. The notice was therefore invalid and the suit was not maintainable for non-compliance with Section 80.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was valid when it was issued in the name of a trade name, while the suit was instituted by the individual proprietor in his own name.

Analysis: Section 80 is mandatory and requires strict compliance. In applying the section to the name of the plaintiff, there is no room for a flexible or common-sense substitution of identity. The notice must disclose the same person who later brings the suit. Here, the notices were issued in the name of "S. N. Dutt & Co.", whereas the plaint described the plaintiff as the sole proprietor, Surrendra Nath Dutta. The trade name was not shown to be a firm capable of suing in that name, and the notices could not be treated as having been given by the individual plaintiff. The required identity between the person giving notice and the person suing was therefore absent.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and the suit was not maintainable for non-compliance with Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---