NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 287-288/2011

SANT PRASAD APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

KAUSLA NAND SINHA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

The only issue raised in these appeals is whether Section 80 C.P.C. notice was required for instituting the suit.  The High Court has stated, in principle, that for instituting a suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is required.  But unfortunately the High Court omitted  to  take  note  of  the  fact  that  the respondent/State  was  permitted  to  be  impleaded  as party and there was no objection taken by the State at that time. 2. In that factual background, we are of the view that  the  stand  taken  by  the  High  Court  is  not tenable,  though,  in  principle,  we  have  no  quarrel with the general proposition that for instituting a suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is required. 3. There  is  no  appearance  on  behalf  of  the appellants.   We  do  not  think  that  any  fruitful purpose will be served by retaining this case before this Court.  We do not also intend to  remit it to the High Court, since it will be another round of litigation. 4. However, in the interest of justice, we grant the liberty to the appellant or anybody claiming through the appellant to file an application before the High Court to consider their case on merits.  In case such an application is filed on behalf of the appellant,

1

the same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay and the High Court may consider the matter on merits. 5. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of. 6. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 7. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 01, 2017.

2