Notice u/s 80 of civil procedure code-procedure to followed

State of Kerala v. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 178

S. 80(2) and Or. 7 R. 11 - Suit allegedly to obtain urgent or immediate relief against Government or any public officer -
Leave of court under S. 80(2) for exemption from serving notice under S. 80(1) - Whether should be granted - Process of
determination - Court has to hear both parties so as to be satisfied about existence of such grave urgency which requires
filing suit without serving notice - Only on being so satisfied, would court pass order on application under S. 80(2)
granting leave, thereby disentitling defendant to raise objection regarding non-issuance of notice - But in case of rejection
of application under S. 80(2) as provided therein, plaint would be liable to be rejected under Or. 7 R. 11,

S. 80(2) - Suit allegedly to obtain urgent or immediate relief against Government or any public officer - Application under
S. 80(2) seeking leave of court for exemption from serving notice under S. 80(1) - Final decision on such application -
What is - Rejection of application under Or. 7 R. 11, held, does not amount to such final decision - Final decision and
order of court granting leave, held, is an essential precondition for maintaining such suit without serving notice - Till
passing of final order, defect of non-issuance of notice continues - Mere filing of application under S. 80(2) is not
sufficient to raise presumption regarding grant of leave of court - Respondent's suit against appellant State - Two IAs
filed by respondent, one seeking leave of court under S. 80(2) and another, under S. 151 CPC for extension of time for
payment of court fee - Second application allowed by trial court and respondent having paid court fee within extended
period, summons issued and hearing adjourned from time to time - IAs filed by appellant State under Or. 7 R. 11 for
rejection of plaint for non-compliance with S. 80(1) - Appellant's IAs heard and rejected by trial court - High Court held
that in view of fact that trial court had heard appellant's IAs even though respondent's application under S. 80(2) was
pending decision, it could be presumed that application under S. 80(2) was allowed by it and hence plaint not liable to be
rejected on ground of non-compliance with S. 80(1) - Held, High Court erred in drawing such presumption when no final
order under S. 80(2) was passed by trial court - Trial court also not justified in dismissing application filed by appellant
State for rejecting plaint although application filed by respondent under S. 80(2) was not finally decided, 

Print Page