“8.In this appeal, the appellant contended that the trial Court having held that it has no jurisdiction and the suit is not maintainable for want of Section 80 C.P.C. notice should not have given finding on other issues and ought to be dismissed the suit on those two issues. While answering Issue No.5 regarding Section 80 C.P.C. notice, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that there was no urgency for filing the suit and according to the plaintiff, the possession of Kalyanamandapam was taken from them in the year 1982 and the suit was filed only on 11.07.1984 viz., more than two years after taking over the properties of the respondent/defendant and hence, there was no urgency as pleaded by the appellant for filing the suit without Section 80 C.P.C. notice and though the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. notice was dispensed with by the Court, it was without notice to the respondent/defendant and therefore, they are not bound by the above order and the suit was not maintainable as statutory notice under Section 80 C.P.C was not given to them. The learned Sub Judge also agreed with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and gave a finding against the plaintiff on that issue. In my opinion , having allowed the parties to contest the suit by adducing oral and documentary evidence, it would be traversy of justice if the suit is dismissed on that ground for want of Section 80 C.P.C notice. Therefore, in my opinion, though the statutory notice was not given, having regard to the subsequent events by allowing parties to contest the suit on merits, the Court should not have dismissed the suit on the ground of want of notice.”
