Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suit against the Government was maintainable when the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was issued by only one of two plaintiffs, and whether the plaint could be rejected or the suit dismissed only in part.
Analysis: Section 80 was treated as express, explicit and mandatory, requiring strict compliance with its terms. The notice had to correspond with the plaintiff or plaintiffs who institute the suit, and a notice by one plaintiff was not sufficient when the suit was brought jointly by two plaintiffs claiming relief for both. The defect was held to be fatal to the maintainability of the suit. The Court also held that rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not confined to a part of the plaint where the claim is joint and indivisible, and that failure against the Government necessarily defeated the connected claim against the other defendants.
Conclusion: The suits were not maintainable for want of proper notice under Section 80, and the plaints were liable to rejection or dismissal as a whole.
Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies, the notice must strictly conform to the identity of the plaintiff or plaintiffs instituting the suit, and non-compliance is fatal where the relief claimed is joint and inseparable.