NOTICE (SEC.

80)

Section 80 of the CPC provides for sending a notice to the government or a public officer if
one wants to institute a suit against the government or against a public officer in respect of
any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity until the
expiration of two months.

OBJECT OF NOTICE

The object of the notice is to give Secretary of State or the public officer an opportunity to
reconsider his legal position and to make amends or afford restitution without recourse to a
court of law1. This section has been enacted as a measure of public policy and the underlying
purpose is the advancement of justice and securing of public good by avoidance of
unnecessary litigation2. Further, it has been intended to alert the Government or a public
officer to negotiate just claims and to settle them if well-founded without adopting an
unreasonable attitude by inflicting wasteful expenditure on the public exchequer 3. The
Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar4 has stated that,
The object of the section is the advancement of justice and the securing of public good by
avoidance of unnecessary litigation.

NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80(1)

Suits between individuals require no notice to be given to the defendant by the plaintiff
before filing of a suit. However as per Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no
suit will be instituted against the Government or against a public officer with regards to any
act done by such an officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months after
the notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of:
(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, except where it relates to a
railway, a Secretary to that Government;
b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway,
the General Manager of that railway;

1
Ghanshyam Das v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC Del 298.
2
J.M. SHELAT, MULLA ON THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, (18th edn., LexisNexis Butterworths)
3
State of Punjab v. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd., (1978) 1 SCC 68.
4
AIR 1984 SC 1043

1
 (c) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir,
the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that
Government in this behalf;
(d) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that
Government or the Collector of the district;
(e) in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the
cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and
the relief which he claims5.

AMENDMENT

The amendment to this section had made some changes in 1976.By the amending act of 1976
section 80 has been extensively amended. Main changes consists of in the insertion of sub
section (2) and (3) which are totally new. Sub-section (2) has been inserted to permit the
institution of a suit without notice but subject to the important restriction prohibiting the grant
of relief in the suit whether interim or otherwise except after giving a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit. Sub section (3)
prohibits dismissal of a suit where the notice, has been given, but suffers from certain
technical deficiencies.

It is expected from public authorities that they will let the plaintiff know their stand within
the statutory period or in any case if has chooses to take up litigation. In certain cases the
court may be obliged to draw an adverse presumption if the notice is not acknowledged or
telling the plaintiff of its stand and if no stand is taken during trial it may be considered as an
afterthought6.

NATURE AND APPLICABILITY

Section 80 enumerates two types of cases:

i) suits against the government; and

ii) suits against public officers in respect of acts done or purporting to be done by
such public officers in their official capacity.

5
C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 426 (7th ed., Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 2013)
6
New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Delhi Development authority A 1991 Del 298,301

2
Regarding the former, the notice is required to be given in all cases. Regarding the latter,
notice is necessary only when the suit is in respect of any act Purporting to be done by the
public officer in the discharge of his duty, not in any other cases7. If the suit relates to an act
done by a public officer in his individual capacity (e.g. if he uses any defamatory language or
commits an act of assault), no notice is required8. Although it has been said that substantive
rights are to be determined in accordance with the provision of the Constitution9, Section 80
of the Code is not a procedural provision, but a substantive one10.

A statutory body may be an instrumentality of the state within the meaning of Art. 12 of the
Constitution11, nevertheless, it would not answer the description of government as it is
understood in law and in the context of S. 8012.

This section is explicit and mandatory and admits of no implications or exceptions13. The
language of this section is imperative and absolutely debars a court from entertaining a suit
instituted without compliance with its provisions. If the provisions of the section are not
complied with, the plaint must be rejected under O. 7, r. 11(d)14.

Section 80 is mandatory and a suit filed before the expiry of the period of two months, which
does not necessarily mean 60 days but has to be calculated month-wise15, after the serving of
notice as per S. 80(1) is not maintainable16.

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA

The Law Commission of India did not favour in retaining the provision of issuing notice
under S. 80 before filing a suit by the aggrieved party. It cited as a reason, inter alia, the
hardship involved in a large number of cases where immediate relief was needed. The
evidence disclosed that in a large majority of cases, the Government or the public officer
made no use of the opportunity afforded by the section. In most cases the notice remained

7
State of Maharashtra v. Chander Kant, (1977) 1 SCC 257.
8
Pukhraj v State of Rajasthan AIR 1973 SC 2591.
9
Nirmal Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 1068.
10
Kanhayalal Osawl v. Govt. of India, AIR 1974 Guj 37.
11
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC 1331.
12
Minakshi Patra v. Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Court of Orissa, AIR 1999 Ori 137.
13
Ramabrahma v. Dominion of India AIR 1958 Cal 183.
14
Jagadish Chandra v. Debendraprasad AIR 1931 Cal 503.
15
Laxmi Narain v. State AIR 1977 Pat 73.
16
Bihari Chowdhry v. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 1043.

3
unanswered17. In large number of cases, Government and public officers utilised the
provision as a technical defence and in a number of cases, the objection has been upheld by
the Court defeating just claims of the citizens18.

The matter was again considered by the third Law commission in the twenty-seventh report
where it noted that it was unable to find a parallel provision in any other country governed by
the Anglo-Saxon system of law. It opined that in a democratic country like India there should
ordinarily be no distinction, as is created by Section 80, between the citizen and the State19.
The Joint Committee of Parliament however has, in public interest, favoured the retention
of the issuance of notice under S. 80, after having considered the reasoning and
recommendations of the Law Commissions.

ESSENTIALS

A notice under S. 80 must contain the following:

(a) name, description and place of residence of the person giving notice;
(b) a statement of the cause of action; and
(c) relief claimed by him.

In considering whether the essential requirements of the section have been complied with, the
Court should ask the following questions20:

(i) Whether the name, description and residence of the plaintiff are given so as to
enable the authorities to identify the person giving the notice?
(ii) Whether the cause of action and the relief which the plaintiff claims have been set
out with sufficient particulars?
(iii) Whether such notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the
appropriate authority mentioned in the section? ; and
(iv) Whether the suit has been instituted after the expiration of two months after
notice has been served, and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has
been so delivered or left?

17
C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 427 (7th ed., Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 2013).
18
Law Commissions Fourteenth Report, pp. 475-476.
19
Law Commissions Twenty-seventh Report, pp. 21-22.
20
State of A.P. v. Gundugola Venkata, AIR 1965 SC 11.

4
NOTICE WHETHER EMPTY FORMALITY?

The statutory notice served in pursuance of section 80, serves the objective of providing an
opportunity to the government or a public officer to take the matter in the reconsideration and
take an appropriate decision which is in accordance with law. The notice by itself was not
intended to be an empty formality but it has become one. The administration is often
unresponsive and shows no courtesy even to intimate the aggrieved party why his claim is not
accepted21.The reason behind enactment of this section was as a measure of public policy, the
purpose was the advancement of justice and securing of good of the people by avoiding
unnecessary litigation.

Krishna Iyer J. has stated We like to emphasize that Governments must be made
accountable by Parliamentary social audit for wasteful litigation expenditure inflicted on the
community by inaction. A statutory notice of the proposed action under S. 80 C.P.C. is
intended to alert the State to negotiate a just settlement or at least have the courtesy to tell the
potential outsider why the claim is being resisted. Now S. 80 has become a ritual because the
administration is often unresponsive and hardly lives up to the Parliaments expectation in
continuing s. 80 in the Code despite the Central Law Commissions recommendations for its
deletion22

The law commission was in fact against the provision of issuing a notice under section 80,
before more than fifty years it has noticed that the section had inflicted hardship in cases
where immediate relief was needed and in most of cases the notice remained unanswered23.

NOTICE WHETHER MANDATORY?

The provisions in section 80 are express and explicit by themselves and make the serving of
notice mandatory by not admitting any implications or exceptions. They are imperative in
nature and must be strictly complied with. Notice, under section 80, is the first step in the
litigation24.A court cannot entertain any suit unless the notice is duly served to the public

21
Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar ,(1984) 2 SCC 627
22
State Of Punjab v. M/S. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd, 1978 AIR 1608.
23
C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 164 (7th ed., Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 2013)
24
State of Seraikella v. Union of India 1951 SCR 474.

5
official under section 80(1). If a section had done injustice, it is a matter which can be
rectified by the legislature and not by a court25.

A plaintiff filed a suit to stop the tax officer from selling the suit property he purchased from
the defendant, who was in arrears of income tax, it was held by the court that the central
government was a necessary party to the suit. Hence unless a notice has been served under
section 80,the suit will not be maintainable26.

The section is imperative and must undoubtedly be strictly construed; failure to serve a notice
complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit27.

CONSTRUCTION OF NOTICE

As mentioned before the compliance with section 80 by serving a notice is mandatory. But it
is a procedural provision, a means by which the court impart justice. A notice under this
section should not be construed in a pedantic manner divorced from common sense28.

Pollock has stated that we must import a little common sense into notice of this kind. A
statutory notice must be reasonably construed, keeping in mind the ultimate objective that an
interpretation should not lead to injustice. Every venial defect or error not going to the root of
the matter cannot be allowed to defeat justice or to afford an excuse to the government or a
public officer to deny just claim of an aggrieved party29.

The question has to be decided by reading the whole notice in totality and in a reasonable
manner. If the notice on such a reading the court is satisfied that the information which was
necessarily to be provided to the defendants by the plaintiff was in fact provided,
inconsequential defects or error is immaterial and will not vitiate the notice. The provisions
of the section are not intended to be use as booby-traps against ignorant and illiterate
persons30.

25
Bhagchand v. Secy. Of State AIR 1927 PC 176.
26
Prakash textiles v.Tax recovery Officer AIR (1983) kant 174.
27
Ghanshyam Dass v.Dominion of India 1984 3 SCC 46.
28
State of Madras v. C.P. Agencies AIR 1960 SC 1309.
29
Jones v.Nicholls, (1844) 13 M & W 361:153 ER 149.
30
Raghunath Das v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 674.

6
ACT PURPORTING TO BE IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY

The expression any act to be done by such public officer in his official capacity takes
within its sweep acts as also illegal omission .Likewise, it also covers past as well as future
acts .All acts done or which could have been done under the colour or guise by an officer in
the ordinary course of his official duties would be included therein31.If the allegations in the
plaint relate to an act which was purported to be done by a public officer in his official
capacity means that the said act must be such that it could be done ordinarily by a person in
the ordinary course of his official duties .It does not cover acts outside the sphere of his
duties. There must be something in the very nature of the act complained of which attaches to
the official character of the person doing it32.

The test to be applied in these cases is that whether the officer can reasonably claim
protection for the acts that he commits or that it was performed by him purely in his private
or individual capacity. In the case of him claiming protection a notice under section 80 is
necessary, and in case it was performed by him purely in his private or individual capacity it
is not33.

WAIVER OF NOTICE

Although, Under Section 80 of the civil procedure code mandates issuance of a notice for the
institution of notice, it is considered to be a mere procedural requirement and not a
substantive need. This is because the issuance of a notice does not necessarily affect the
jurisdiction of the court in question. In the case of Dhina Singh v. Union of India34, It was
held that this notice is for the benefit of the government or the public officer, it is the
prerogative of the government to choose to waive the right. Furthermore, in the case of
Commr. Of taxes v. Golak Nath35, it was held by the courts that the facts of the particular case
were vital to see if the right could be waivered or not.

FORM OF NOTICE

No particular has been prescribed under the code. Due to the above, there is no need to give it
in any particular form to give a notice under Section 80. The mere satisfaction of all

31
Samanthalal Koti v. Pothuri Subbiah AIR 1918 Mad 62
32
State of Maharastra v. Chander Kant (1977) 1 SCC 257 at p.260.
33
Amalgamated Electricity co.(Belagaum) Ltd. v Municipal committee Ajmer AIR 1969 SC 227
34
AIR 1958 SC 274
35
AIR 1979 Gau 10

7
conditions prescribed in this section is sufficient. Also, in the Amar Nath v. Union of India36,
it was held that the notice must merely inform the opposite party about the nature and the
basis of the claim and relief sought.

MODE OF SERVICE

A notice submitted under section 80 of the civil procedure code must be given to, or left at
the office of, the appropriate authority specified. This was held in the State of A.P v.
Gundugola Venkata37. IT has been specified in the code as to who the appropriate authority is
under section 80. As per the section, it must be given to the secretary of the department or the
collector of the district. Under this section, personal delivery of the notice is not necessary,
thus making the words left at the office redundant. The section, however does not prohibit
the personal deliver of the notice. It further allows the notice to be sent through registered
post.

TECHNICAL DEFECT IN NOTICE: SECTION 80(3)

The Code of Civil Procedure (amendment) act, 1976 gives a lot of clarity on a suit issued
against the government if there is a defect in the notice issued. The Amendment added
Subsection 3 to section 80 whereby it has been explicitly stated that no suit against the
government has be dismissed merely on the ground of a defective notice. It also adds that in
such a case the name, residence or the residence of the plaintiff is specified in the notice,
allowing for the identification of the plaintiff in the notice delivered or left at the authority or
public officer and the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been
substantially indicated therein. This means that if the notice contained basic details, it would
be sufficient38.

The above amendment to the code was made with the intention that justice is not denied to
the aggravated parties on the grounds of technical defects. Therefore, a notice under section
80 cannot be held to be invalid and no suit can be dismissed on the grounds that there has
been a certain technical defect or error in the notice delivered or on the ground that such
notice was served in an improper way39.

36
AIR 1963 SC 424
37
AIR 1965 SC 11.
38
C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 164 (7th ed., Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 2013).
39
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code

8
Also, the joint committee stated the following

The committee also feels that with a view to seeing that the just claims of many persons are
not defeated on technical grounds, the suit against the government or the public officer
should not be dismissed merely by reason of any technical defect or error in the notice or any
irregularity in the service of the notice if the name, description and residence of the plaintiff
have been so given in the notice as to enable the appropriate authority or public officer to
identify the person serving the notice, and the notice had been delivered or left in the
appropriate authority, and the cause of action and the relief claimed has been properly
indicated in the notice.

In copulating the period of limitation for instituting a suit against the government or public
officer, the period of notice has to be excluded40.

LEAVE OF COURT: SECTION 80(2)

Through the amendment made to the civil procedure code in 1976, subsection 2 was added to
section 80. As per this, the aggrieved party can institute a suit against the government for
obtaining urgent or immediate relief with the leave of the court even without serving the
notice to the government or public office. This subsection, thus, engrafts an exception to the
rule laid down in subsection (1) of section 80 and allows the plaintiff to obtain urgent relief in
grave cases even without issuing notice41.

The main objective of this is to prevent any failure or miscarriage of injustice in urgent cases.
It is the urgency and immediate relief which would weigh with the court while dealing with a
prayer to dispense with the requirement of a notice and not the merits of the case. Subsection
(2) however, is enacted in such a way that in this type of case, the court will not have any
authority to grant a relief, interim or otherwise, unless a reasonable opportunity has been
given to the government to show cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit.42

WRIT PETITION

As per Section 80 of the code, it can be stated that a writ petition filed under article 32 and
article 226 of the constitution does not constitute a suit as per the definition and scope of this

40
S.15, Limitation Act, 1963.
41
Ghanshyam Das v. Dominion of India AIR 1984 SC 1004
42
C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 429 (7th ed., Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 2013)

9
section. Hence, prior notice to the government or public officer is not necessary before filing
a petition in the Supreme Court or in a high court43.

COMPUTATION OF SUIT

In computing the period of limitation for filing a suit, the period of notice should be
excluded44.

PREMATURE SUIT

A suit instituted before the expiry of two months of notice as required by section 80 of the
code is liable to be dismissed only on that ground45.

APPEAL

An order passed under section 80 is neither a decree nor an appealable order, and hence, no
appeal lies against the order46.

REVISION

Under Section 115 of the code, an order given under Section 80 is revisable as it considered
as a case decided. If a court subordinate to the High Court makes an order which is patently
illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error, then it can be rectified by the High Court47.

STATEMENT IN PLAINT

Even after the expiration of two months, a plaint can be presented before the court. This must
contain a statement which, under section 80 of the code, has a statutory notice which has been
delivered or left as per subsection (1) of section 80. An omission to make such a statement is
fatal, and in its absence, the plaint will be rejected by the court48.

43
Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S Advani AIR 1950 SC 222
44
C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 429 (7th ed., Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 2013).
45
Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 1043.
46
Kailash Chandra v. State of MP AIR 1992 MP 242
47
Muktarei Devi v State of Manipur AIR 1978 Gau 17
48
C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963, 429 (7th ed., Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 2013)

10
PARTIES

Where a suit is filed against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done in his
official capacity, the government should be joined as a party to the suit49.

In Sangamesh Printing Press v. Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board50, the
State was not impleaded as a party before the Trial Court in a money recovery suit. The same
was dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary party. During appeal, an
application was made under O. 1 R. 10 praying for impleadment of the State, however the
High Court decided the matter on merits without considering the same. This Court observed
as under:

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High
Court should have decided the appellant's application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and,
thereafter, proceeded to hear the appeal in question. Not having disposed of the application
under Order 1 Rule 10 has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. We, therefore, set aside
the judgment of the High Court and restore Regular First Appeal No 29 of 1987 to its file.
The High Court should first deal with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which is
pending before it and then proceed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

While considering the similar case in Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. v.
Collector & Ors51, this Court accepted the submission that writ cannot be entertained without
impleading the State if relief is sought against the State. This Court had drawn the analogy
from Section 79 CPC, which directs that the State shall be the authority to be named as
plaintiff or defendant in a suit by or against the Government and Section 80 thereof directs
notice to the Secretary of that State or the Collector of the district before the institution of the
suit and Rule 1 of Order XXVII lays down as to who should sign the pleadings. No individual
officer of the Government under the scheme of the constitution nor under the CPC, can file a
suit nor initiate any proceeding in the name and the post he is holding, who is not a juristic
person.

49
Order 27 rule 1.
50
(1999) 6 SCC 44.
51
AIR 2003 SC 1805.

11
In Bal Niketan Nursery School v. Kesari Prasad52, this Court held that application for
impleadment of a necessary party can be filed at any stage of proceeding provided the Court
is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevailing in the case, warrant the impleadment.

PROCEDURE: RULE 27

Rule 1 provides that in case of a suit by or against the government, the plaint or written
statement shall be signed by any person appointed by the government in this regard by way of
a general or special order. The plaint or written statement shall be verified by a person
appointed by the government and who is aware of the facts of the case.

Rule 2 provides that any person who is ex officio entitled to represent the government in
judicial proceedings or is authorized by the government in this regard shall be the recognised
agent who shall makes appearances, applications and do acts on behalf of the government.
The court pointed out in Mohanlal Ramchandra v. The Union Of India53, that there are two
distinct rules under Order 27 namely Rules 1 and 2. Under Rule 1 only a limited authority to
sign and verify pleadings is given. It is only a person authorised to act without any such
limitation who can present a memorandum of appeal.

It has also been given in the code that multiple summons may be issued to a government
pleader. There is no need for the state counsel to file a Vakalatnama. Reasonable time should
be granted to the government for filing a written statement54. The courts, in all cases must
assist the Government to arrive at a settlement in all cases where it is a party. This is
considered as one of the main duties of the court. There are instances where the suit filed may
have a substantial question of law or that it may require the interpretation of law or the
constitution. In such cases, the court will need to send a notice to the attorney General, if the
question is regarding a central law or it will need to send a notice to the advocate general if
the suit deals with a state law. This has been given in Order 27-A of the Code.

Under Rule 4 of Order III, CPC No, pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless
he has been appointed for the purpose by such person and every such appointment shall be
filed in Court and shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court
by a writing signed by the client or the pleader as the case may be and filed in Court, or until

52
AIR 1987 SC 1970.
53
AIR 1972 Raj 152.
54
Northern Sub-division v. Comunidade of Bombolim , (1995) 5 SCC 333.

12
the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in me suit are ended so-far as regards
the client. Thus, as per the above referred provisions of Civil Procedure Code once a counsel
is engaged for the State he shall continue to remain authorised agent for the State until his
engagement is determined by the client or pleader in writing with the leave of the Court55.

As per Rule 4, the government pleader shall be the agent of the government for receiving all
court processes. In Mundrika Prasad Sinha v. State Of Bihar56, the Honble Supreme Court
stated that as per section 2(7) of the CPC, Government Pleader includes any officer
appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions expressly imposed
by this Code on the Government Pleader and also any pleader acting under the directions of
the Government Pleader.

Manifestly, this is an inclusive definition and, read along with Order 27 Rule (4) and (8) B(c),
clearly yields the inference that Government may have as many Government Pleaders as it
likes to conduct its cases even as any client, who has a crowd of cases to be conducted, may
engage a battery of lawyers. Government is in no worse position that an ordinary litigant and
is not bound to encourage monopoly within the profession. Indeed, the root cause of the
petitioners desire to corner all the litigation of the Government is that its policy of legal
remuneration has neither distributive bias nor socially sober ceiling57.

According to Rule 5, for the purpose of fixing the date for the hearing, the court must have
due regard to the communications made to the government, issue of instructions to the
government pleader to appear, etc. Such time limit may be extended by the court but not
beyond 2 months in aggregate. In pursuant with Rule 7, an extension may also be granted
where a public official is the defendant and he takes leave from the court to make a reference
to the government before he answers the allegations in the plaint. This is also because as per
Rule 5A, in every suit against a public officer, the government is deemed to have been joined
as a party.

Rule 8 states that where the government decides to take defence for acts done by a public
official, the government pleader after having been authorized in this regard shall make an
application to the court and the court shall cause his name to be entered into the register of

55
http://www.legalindia.com/procedure-to-investigate-suits-by-or-against-the-government/, as accessed on
28.08.2015.
56
1979 AIR 1871.
57
http://www.legalindia.com/procedure-to-investigate-suits-by-or-against-the-government/, as accessed on
23.09.2015.

13
civil suits. Where no such application is made by the government pleader on or before the
date of hearing as fixed by the notice, the proceedings shall be deemed to be as between
private parties. However, the public official in such case cannot be arrested or his property
cannot be attached, except where it is for execution of a decree58.

OTHER PRIVILEGES

In the case where a suit has been brought up against any public officer, then it has been
dictated by Rule 5-A that the Government must be a joined party to the suit. An obligation
has been bestowed on the courts by Rule 5-B to assist the government or the public officer in
question in coming to a settlement. Whenever the public servant is the defendant, then rule 7
ensures that there is a reasonable amount of time given to the public servant to make a
reference to the government. Rule 8-A protects all those official against whom suits have
been filed when they were discharging their duty or acting in an official capacity.

Section 81 is also considered as an important privilege given to a public servant. It allows the
court to exempt the public servant form appearing before the court. It can do this only if
believes that by making the person absenting himself from his duty, there is a loss caused to
the public. It has also been stated under section 82 that no execution will be entertained by
any court against any decree passed by the government is a public officer. The only condition
that must be fulfilled for seeking this is that it must be unsatisfied for three months since the
date the decree was passed59.

58
Id.
59
Section 84 , Civil Procedure Code, 1908

14
CONCLUSION

This project has explained what suits against the government and public officials are. The
project starts off by saying what exactly is stated in Section 80(1) which explains how a suit
must be filed. After this, it was felt that there had to be a special emphasis given to the
amendment and how it changed the whole sections pertinent to the above topic. There is also
a mention about the nature and applicability of such suits with a mention about the various
essentials mentioned under Section 80. This project also tries to answer some of the questions
with respect to this topic such as whether notices in this matter are just a mere formality or if
they are mandatory. As this is with respect to government and public officers, this project
also speaks about what happens to acts that are conducted in an official capacity. After
concluding the above topics, this project attempts to elucidate about the various aspects of
these types of suits. It speaks about whether rights granted under this can be waived, the
forms in which notices can be served and also the modes in which these have to be served.
Keeping in view with it, this project speaks about some of the technicality of law, like what
happens when there is a technical defection in the notice, or about the exclusion period of the
notice or when there is a need for a judgment on an urgent basis. Additionally, this project
talks about the procedure when writs are files, or when there is a premature suit, on appeal or
if there is a revision. In conclusion, this project speaks about procedure given under rule 27
and other privileges given to parties.

15
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books referred:

C.K. TAKWANI, CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (7th ed.,
Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2013)
J.M. SHELAT, MULLA ON THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, (18th edn.,
LexisNexis Butterworths)

Websites referred:

http://www.legalindia.com/procedure-to-investigate-suits-by-or-against-the-
government.
https://www.nls.ac.in/lib/bareacts/civil/cpc/cpco27.html.
http://www.shareyouressays.com/111324/how-are-suits-filed-by-and-against-the-
government-in-india.
http://www.legalpoint.in/LawrelatingtoSuits.php
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/suits-brought-government-public-officers.
http://www.helplinelaw.com/civil-litigation-and-others/SUIT/types-of-suits.html.
http://delhihighcourt.nic.inwritereaddatauploadCourtRulesCourtRuleFile_6N0W6FNH.
PDF.
httplawcommissionofindia.nic.inreportsreport221.pdf.

16