JUDGMENT
B.P. Saraf, J.
1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,715/- by way of compensation on account of damage caused to his vehicle while it was under requisition with the officers of the Government of Assam for election duty. In the suit, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was named as defendant No. 1, besides the Magistrate and Sub-
Divisional Officer (Election Branch), Barpeta who requisitioned the vehicle, the Chief Election Officer, Assam, the Election Officer, Barpeta for whose duty it was requisitioned and the New India Assurance Company Limited with whom the vehicle was insured. They were made defendants Nos. 2 to 5. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff through his Advocate served a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam and other defendants.
2. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in their written statement pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and for non-compliance of the requirement under Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was claimed by the defendants that the vehicle at the time of the accident was under the possession of plaintiff through his employees and not with the ‘Government’ and that the alleged damage was caused due to wrongful acts and rash and negligent driving of his employees and, as such, the defendants were not liable to pay any compensation. The trial Court framed as many as 15 issues. Issues Nos. 2 and 3, which related to maintainability of the suit and are relevant for the decision of the present case are reproduced below:–
“(2) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and for non-compliance of requirement Under Section 79, C.P.C.
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party”.
Regarding compensation, the relevant issue was issue No. 13 which reads as follows :–
“(13) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for Rs. 25,715.00 against the defendants jointly and severally?”
3. On facts, the learned trial Court held that the vehicle was under custody of the defendants officers when it met with the accident. However, while deciding issue No. 13, it did not decide the quantum of compensation as it was of the opinion that the suit was bad for want of valid notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and for non-compliance of
the requirement of Section 79, C.P.C. According to the learned trial Court, the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were officers of the State of Assam and they were discharging their duties as public servants. The State of Assam was liable for the acts done by them and, as such, it was a necessary party. In the absence of the State of Assam, no effective decree could be passed. Accordingly, issues Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff and it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief against the defendants. The suit was, therefore, dismissed.
4. Against the said judgment, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was served duly on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam. In the suit, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was impleaded as defendant No. 1. The other officials of the State Government who were connected with the requisition and use of the vehicle were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 to 4. There was no non-compliance of requirements of Section 79 or 80, C.P.C.
5. Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Miss Usha Barua, learned Government Advocate. Mr. Sarma submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the proper perspective. It misconstrued and misinterpreted Sections 79 and 80 of the C.P.C. It gave too technical a meaning to the requirement of the said sections and thereby arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Accordingto Mr. Sarma, it is clear from the contents of the notice under Section 80, C.P.C. that the claim was made against the State Government and the State of Assam was made a party to the suit through its Chief Secretary in his representative capacity as defendant No. 1. It was also pointed out that the Chief Secretary was not one of the officials who were in any way connected with the requisition. He was made a party only as representative of the State of Assam. It was further contended that in the instant case mistake, if any, in the description of the State of Assam, did not cause any prejudice to the State of Assam as the notices and the plaint were rightly understood by the
State and written statement was also filed on behalf of the State of Assam. That being the factual position, the learned trial Court was not justified in taking too technical a view and holding that notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was not served on the State and that the State of Assam was not made a party and in dismissing the suit on that account.
6. Miss Ushal Barua, appearing for the respondents, submits that the requirements of Sections 79 and 80, C.P.C. must be strictly complied with. It is obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to address notice under Section 80, C.P.C. to the “State of Assam” and also to implead the “State of Assam” as such as a defendant in the suit. Substantial compliance of the requirements of Sections 79 and 80, C.P.C. is not enough. Miss Barua also drew my attention to Order 27, Rule 5A of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires that in a suit against public officer, the Government should be joined as a party to the suit. Her submission was that unless the ‘State’ as such is made a party, a suit against the officers of the State, in respect of any act done by them in their official capacity is not be maintainable.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case. It is not disputed that notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was served, besides other defendants, on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam. From a reading of the notice, it appears that in the said notice, it was clearly stated that the Government was liable to pay the claim and in the list of defendants named in the notice “The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Gauhati, Assam” was shown as defendant No. 1. In the plaint, in para. 11, the plaintiff pleaded as follows :–
“That the plaintiff is entitled to the said compensation as detailed in the said schedule. The defendants are liable to make good the said loss. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 acted in their official capacity at the relevant time and as such the Govt. of Assam is also liable and as such, the plaintiff served a notice Under Section 80, C.P.C. on 28-11-77 on all the defendants through the plaintiff’s Advocate Shri Padma Nath Baruah, M.A., B.L., Advocate Barpeta.
The said notices were duly posted and were served on all the defendants.”
8. The suit was contested by all the defendants including defendants Nos. 1 to 4. A joint written statement was filed. The verification in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 was made by Nilimoy Choudhury, Sub-Divisional Officer, Barpeta who stated therein that it was made “on behalf of the State of Assam and on behalf of defendants 1 to 4”. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that there was no manner of doubt in the minds of the defendants that the suit was instituted against the Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Officer (defendant No. 2) who seized the vehicle and the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 for whose use it was seized. As all these defendants were public officers purporting to act in their official capacity a notice was served in terms of Section 80, C.P.C. on all of them and also on the Chief Secretary to the State of Assam. The suit was instituted against the said public officers namely, the respondents 2 to 4. The State Government was also made a defendant through its Chief Secretary. At no stage, the defendants were misled by the aforesaid notice or the description of the defendants in the plaint. There was no doubt in the mind of any of the respondents that the State of Assam was sought to be made liable for the acts of the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and it is in that context that the State of Assam in fact contested the suit by filing the written statement through its official defendant No. 2. The written statement, as earlier stated, was verified by the Sub-Divisional Officer on behalf of “the State” as well as the other defendants. This is the factual matrix.
9. On the aforesaid facts, the question
that arises for determination is — whether the
requirements of Sections 79 and 80 were
fulfilled in the instant case. To properly
appreciate the point at issue, it is necessary to
read Sections 79 and 80 of the Code which are
as follows :–
“79. Suits by or against Government.– In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be–
(a) in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government, the Union of India, and
(b) in the case of a suit by or against a State Government, the State.”
“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, a Secretary to that Government;
(b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government when it relates to a railway, the General–Manager of the 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 authorised by that Government in their behalf;
(c) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the District.
(d) ***
and, in the case if a public officer delivered to him or left at his office, stating the case 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 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, retain the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of Subsection (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 pf any error or defect in the notice referred to in Sub-section (1), if in such notice-
(4) 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.”
10. From a reading of Section 79, it is clear that it covers the subject of authorities which are to be named in a suit filed by or against the Central Government or the State Government. It deals with procedure and has to be interpreted accordingly.
11. Section 80, on the other hand, is mandatory in the sense that it puts a bar on the institution of suits against the Government or a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity until expiration of two months next after notice in writing containing the requisite informations is delivered. The notice in the case of a suit against any State Government (other than the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) should be delivered to the Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district. It should contain informations regarding cause of action, the names, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief claimed.
12. The object of the notice contemplated by Section 80 is to give to the concerned Governments and public officers opportunity to reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised without litigation. The legislative intention behind that section is that public money and time should not be wasted on unnecessary litigation and the Government and the public officers should be given a reasonable opportunity to examine the claim made against them lest they should be drawn into avoidable litigations. The purpose of law is advancement of justice. It must be remembered that Section 80 of the Code is but a part of the Procedure Code passed to provide the regulation and machinery, by means of which the Courts may do justice between the parties. It is, therefore, merely apart of the adjective law and deals with procedure alone and must be interpreted in a manner so as to subserve and advance the cause of justice rather than to defeat it. (See Raghunath Dass v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 674 and Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India, (1984) 3 SCC 46 : (AIR 1984 SC 1004).
13. It is well settled principle that as far as possible, no proceeding in a Court of law should be allowed to be defeated on mere technicalities. Legal provisions like Section 80 should, therefore, be construed in a manner which is consistent with the object sought to be achieved thereby. Those should not be utilised merely to raise technical pleas designed to defeat the just claims of the people. These provisions, as observed by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass (AIR 1984 SC 1004), Supra, are not intended to be used as booby-traps against ignorant and illiterate persons. The aforesaid interpretation is also in tune with the new ethos of a democratic society governed by the Rule of law. Every Government which claims to be inspired by ethical and moral values must do what is fair and just to the citizen regardless of strict legal technicalities. It should try to do what is fair and just. It should not take too rigid a stand just to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizens. A notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, should be read as a whole and given a reasonable
interpretation. It should not be scrutinised in a pedantic manner completely divorced from common sense. It should be held to be valid if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 80, C.P.C.
14. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the interpretation of Sections 79 and 80 given above, it is evident that in the instant case, all the requirements of the aforesaid Sections were duly fulfilled. A notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was served on the Chief Secretary. Under Rule 2(i) of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968 made in exercise of powers under Article 166 of the Constitution ‘Secretary’ has been defined to include the ‘Chief Secretary’. Under Rule 13 of the said Rules, Chief Secretary is also the Secretary to the Cabinet. He is in charge of the administration. Section 80 requires a notice to be served in case of State Government on the “Secretary to the Government”. Notice served on the Chief Secretary, under the facts and circumstances, stated above, has to be held to be a valid notice under Section 80, C.P.C. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Court below in regard to the validity of the notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is not sustainable in law and is, therefore, set aside.
15. Reverting to the finding of the Court below in regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 79 of the Code, it may be observed that Section 79 being a procedural section, substantial compliance with the requirement thereof is sufficient. In the instant case, the defendant No. 1 was the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam. He was in fact named in his capacity as a representative of the State of Assam. He also understood it accordingly. That is evident from the written statement wherein the verification was made also on behalf of the State of Assam. It can, therefore, be said that the requirements of Section 79 was fulfilled in the present case. Any other construction of the plaint will be contrary to the spirit of the Section 79 and retard the cause of justice. On the same reasoning requirement of Order 27, Rule 5A can also be said to have been fulfilled.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit of the
plaintiff on too technical interpretation of the notice under S, 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the cause title of the plaint.
17. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned as the trial Court did not arrive at any finding in view of its decision against the plaintiff in regard to the maintainability of the suit, the case is remanded back to the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta to determine the quantum of damage and to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. As the matter is very old, it is further directed that it may be disposed of within four months from the date of receipt of the records.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded as indicated above. No order as to costs. Send down the records forthwith.