Statutory notice under civil procedure law applied to a revenue-linked suit, making the action incompetent without prior service.

Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held applicable to a suit under Schedule 2, Rule 43 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act because the term "suit" was treated as wide enough to include proceedings seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. The court rejected the argument that the suit was the notice requirement merely because it was linked to revenue proceedings, and applied the settled view that statutory notice under Section 80 admits of no judicial exception. As notice had not been served, the suit was held incompetent, the decree below was set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit under Schedule 2, Rule 43 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 was governed by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether failure to serve the prescribed notice rendered the suit incompetent.

Analysis: Section 80 was treated as plain, explicit and mandatory in its application to suits against the Government. The reasoning proceeded on the footing that the expression "suit" is wide enough to include proceedings in which declaratory or injunctive relief is sought, and that a suit under Schedule 2, Rule 43 could not be excluded merely because it was said to be a continuation of revenue proceedings. Reliance was placed on the settled view that the notice requirement admits of no judicial exception, and the analogous treatment of suits under Order 21, Rule 63 reinforced that construction.

Conclusion: Section 80 applied to the suit, and the suit was not maintainable because notice had not been served; the decree of the court below was therefore set aside and the suit dismissed.

---