https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273529 The District Judge remanded the case for a fresh trial to determine whether the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was waived, emphasizing the distinction between presumed and actual waiver. The judgment highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 80 in suits for permanent injunction, referencing historical conflicts among High Courts and emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions without implying exceptions. Despite conflicting views in a previous case, the judge rejected the plea due to the lack of mandatory notice under Section 80, allowing the appeal and dismissing the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. en-us Tue, 22 Sep 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273529 The District Judge remanded the case for a fresh trial to determine whether the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was waived, emphasizing the distinction between presumed and actual waiver. The judgment highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 80 in suits for permanent injunction, referencing historical conflicts among High Courts and emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions without implying exceptions. Despite conflicting views in a previous case, the judge rejected the plea due to the lack of mandatory notice under Section 80, allowing the appeal and dismissing the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Sep 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273529