Andhra High Court
Smt. Achanta Chaya Devi vs State Of Telangana Represented By Its ... on 10 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 HYDERABAD 148, (2018) 6 ANDHLD 6 (2018) 3 CURCC 291, (2018) 3 CURCC 291, AIRONLINE 2018 HYD 174
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4319 OF 2018
10-08-2018
Smt. Achanta Chaya Devi Petitioner... Petitioner
State of Telangana represented by its The Inspector General, Stamaps & Registration, Hyderabad and others Respondents
Counsel for petitioners: Sri V.Narasimha Goud
Counsel for respondents: --
OS(SR).No.3276 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking a declaration that the sale deed bearing Document No.2221 of 2002 dated 29.04.2002 executed in favour of defendant 9 in respect of the suit schedule property was null and void. She also sought a permanent injunction restraining defendants 8 and 9 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Plot No.7, admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.Nos.404 and 405, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Rampally Village and Gram Panchayat, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Ranga Reddy Judicial District), is the suit schedule property.
For reasons best known to her, the petitioner-plaintiff added the State of Telangana represented by its Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad; the District Registrar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District; the Sub-Registrar, Shamirpet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District; and the Sub-Registrar, Keesara, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as defendants 1 to 4 in the suit, though she sought no relief against them.
The suit papers were returned on 08.05.2018 with certain objections and were re-submitted on 04.06.2018. The suit papers were again returned by the trial Court with objections on 07.06.2018. One of the objections was that a Section 80 CPC petition was not filed. The suit papers were re-submitted on 13.06.2018 and as to the objection raised in connection with Section 80 CPC, it was stated that legal notice dated 03.02.2018 was issued to the officials prompting a reply on 26.02.2018 from defendant 1 and hence notice, as required under Section 80 CPC, was complied with. It was further stated that it was not necessary in any event as the suit claim was against the other defendants and that the issue was covered by the decision in KOLANATI SATYANARAYANA V/s. NIZAMPATNAM MASTAN . The suit papers were however returned again on the very same day i.e., 13.06.2018, with the following endorsement:
All objections are complied but a petition is not filed under Section 80 CPC which is required as defendants 1 to 4 are Government bodies.
Hence returned to comply the same within 7 days.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, her learned counsel. As the suit is yet to be registered, this Court does not deem it necessary to put respondents 1 to 8 herein, the defendants in the suit, on notice or afford them an opportunity of hearing at this stage.
Section 80 CPC reads as under:
80. Notice:-
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) no suit shall be instituted against the Government including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir 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 next after 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;
(bb) 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 authorized by that Government in this behalf;
(c) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district;
and, 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 claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit:
Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). (3) No suit instituted 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 shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice -
(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and
(b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated.
In effect, Section 80(1) CPC states that no suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purported to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. Section 80(2) provides that in the event of urgent or immediate relief being sought against the Government or any public officer in respect of any act purported to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, a suit may be instituted with the leave of the Court without service of notice as stipulated in Section 80(1) CPC. Section 80(3) CPC provides that a defective notice issued under Section 80(1) would not be reason enough to dismiss the suit if the name, description and residence of the plaintiff has been given correctly so as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice has been delivered at the office of the appropriate authority or public officer and the cause of action and relief claimed are substantially indicated.
Overall, it is manifest that a notice under Section 80 CPC is a condition precedent when the suit instituted seeks relief against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purported to be done by him in his official capacity. In the present case, no relief whatsoever is claimed against defendants 1 to 4, the officials of the State. It appears that they have been impleaded only because the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed.
Trite to state, Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides that when the Court cancels a registered instrument, it shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the said instrument had been registered and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation. Therefore, a direction from the Court need not be sought by the petitioner-plaintiff to the registration authorities in this regard. In fact, the plaint does not contain any such prayer.
In such circumstances, insistence by the trial Court as to compliance with Section 80 CPC is superfluous and unnecessary. It may be noted that this Court had occasion to consider this very issue in KOLANATI SATYANARAYANA1. That was a case where a suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to remove clay from the suit schedule property and for a consequential injunction to protect their right. Dealing with the objection as to non-issuance of a notice under Section 80 CPC, this Court held that the same was untenable as the plaintiffs therein did not claim any relief against the Government or its officials. This Court further observed that the necessity to issue a notice under Section 80 CPC arises only if any action of the Government is challenged. Despite this decision being brought to its notice, it appears that the trial Court is still insisting upon compliance with Section 80 CPC without application of mind.
On the above analysis, this Court holds that the return of the plaint, on the ground of non-compliance with Section 80 CPC and that a petition is to be filed thereunder, is unsustainable in law.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. The trial Court shall entertain and register the suit if it is otherwise found to be in order and proceed in accordance with law.
The Registry is directed to return the original plaint to the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment