A revisional application challenged rejection of a defendant's Order 7 Rule 11(d) dismissal claim premised on absence of Section 80 notice to proforma Government defendants. The court found no suit filed against public officials acting officially and dismissed the application, upholding the trial judge's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
11.12.2024 Ct. No. 22 Sl. No.109 KB
In The High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side
C.O. 3085 of 2022
Sharadindu Das & Ors. -versus-
Smt. Chandana Mitra & Ors.
Mr. Samiran Mandal Mr. Abhinaba Dan … For the petitioners.
Mr. Subhas Chandra Atha Ms. Payel Paramanik
… For the opposite party nos.1 & 2.
2
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners harped on the stand of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also relied on a case of Bihari Chowdhary and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (1984) 2 SCC 627 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the suit against the Government official or public officer, to which the requirement of a prior notice under Section 80 is attracted, cannot be validly instituted prior to expiration of the period of two months next, after the notice in writing has been delivered.
5. Per contra, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted that all these officials were made proforma defendants to the suit and no claim was made against them according to paragraph 27 of the plaint.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has further relied on a reportable Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was not necessary unless the subject matter of the suit is in respect of any
3
act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity.
7. Here in this case no such suit was filed against any act of public officer in discharge of his official duties.
8. The case of Bihari Chowdhary (supra) also interpreted Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same line.
revisional application stands dismissed.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit with Government officials as proforma defendants against whom no claim is made requires prior Section 80 CPC notice, warranting dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11(d).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bihari Chowdhary and Another vs. State of Bihar and OthersRelied on¶4
(1984) 2 SCC 627 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sharadindu Das & Ors.
Smt. Chandana Mitra & Ors.
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
