Sri Ram and Others vs Mullo and Others

A.N. Verma, J.—This is a Plaintiff''s application in revision directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Shahjahanpur, allowing a revision filed by the Defendants-opposite parties against an order of the learned Munsif disposing off issue No. 5. Issue No. 5 was whether the suit was barred by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:

The Plaintiff-applicants had filed a suit in respect of certain piece of land for injunction, possession and damages. The Defendant-opposite party No. 4 Lakhan filed a written statement asserting that the land in dispute had been settled by the Gaon Sabha. The opposite-party No. 4 Lakhan stated in the written statement that he had purchased the land in an auction held by the Gaon Sabha which is opposite party No. 5 in the present Revision. One of the pleas raised in the written statement on behalf of Lakhan was that the State of U.P. was a necessary party under Rule 110-B of the Rules framed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Thereupon, it appears that the Plaintiff-applicant made an application for impleadment of the State of U.P. This application was allowed and the State of U.P. was permitted to be impleaded as Defendant No. 4 in the suit. After this, upon the objection raised by the opposite party Lakhan, that the suit was incompetent in view of the fact that no notice u/s 80 of the CPC has been served on the State of Uttar Pradesh, an issue was framed as issue No. 5 to the effect mentioned above. The trial court answered the issue in favour of the opposite-parties holding that in a case where the State is added as a party subsequent to the filing of the suit, the provisions of Section 80 CPC are not applicable.

Against the finding of the trial court, the Defendant-opposite-party No. 4 Lakhan filed a revision which has been allowed by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge has taken the view that a notice u/s 80 CPC was mandatory, irrespective of the fact whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was impleaded initially when the suit was filed, or subsequently added as a party. The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge answering issue No. 5 in favour of the opposite party. The learned District Judge upon the finding that a notice u/s 80, CPC was mandatory and had not been given by the Plaintiffs, dismissed the suit itself as incompetent. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-applicants urged that in a case where the State is impleaded as a Defendant subsequent to the filing of the suit, no notice u/s 80 CPC is necessary. He was, however, unable to substantiate his submission by any authority. I am also of the view that it cannot be laid down as a rule that whenever the State of Uttar Pradesh is added as a Defendant, subsequent to the filing of the suit, notice u/s 80, Code of Civil Procedure, is obviated. I agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the opposite party that under Rule 110-B of the Rules framed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the State of U.P. was a necessary party, and not merely a proper party. That being so, the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to get round the provisions of Section 80 CPC by not impleading the State of Uttar Pradesh initially. If the State of Uttar Pradesh was a necessary party, as I am of opinion it was so, then clearly the provisions of Section 80 CPC are attracted and inasmuch as the Plaintiff-applicants had not given any notice u/s 80 Code of Civil Procedure, their suit was incompetent. The learned District Judge, was, therefore, right in dismissing the applicants'' suit as incompetent, in view of the fact admittedly the Plaintiffs-applicants have not given any notice to the State of U.P. u/s 80 Code of Civil Procedure.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.