Prior notice under Section 424 CPC was mandatory, and the suit failed against both defendants without it.

Section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure required two months' prior written notice before a suit could be instituted against the Secretary of State. The Court construed the provision in its ordinary terms and rejected any narrower reading limiting it to particular classes of suits. Because the act complained of was done in the Secretary of State's official capacity and the notice requirement was admittedly not complied with, the preliminary objection succeeded. The objection was held to affect the suit as a whole, so the action could not proceed against the co-defendant purchaser alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether notice under Section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure was mandatory before instituting the suit against the Secretary of State, and whether the suit could proceed without such notice against the co-defendant purchaser.

Analysis: Section 424 was treated as a procedural provision requiring two months' prior written notice before any suit could be instituted against the Secretary of State. The absence of such notice was admitted. The Court construed the section according to its ordinary language and held that the notice requirement was not to be cut down by reading in a limitation confined to particular kinds of suits. As the challenged act was one done in the Secretary of State's official capacity, the preliminary objection succeeded. The Court further held that the objection was common to the suit as a whole, so the suit could not be maintained against the purchaser alone.

Conclusion: Notice under Section 424 was required, the suit was not maintainable without it, and dismissal of the suit against both defendants was justified.

---