1. The substantial ground taken in these two revisions is that the Court below has failed to apply the provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C. The point appears to me perfectly clear. The admitted facts are that the suit was instituted against the G.I.P. Railway while it was a private Company. During the pendency of the suit the line was taken over by Government and the Secretary of State for India in Council was substituted as defendant. The applicant urges that notice should have been given to the Secretary of State under Section 80. That section requires two months’ notice to be given before a suit is instituted against the Secretary of State Here there was no question of instituting the suit. The suit was already instituted. The matter is one of devolution of a right during the pendency of a suit and is governed by Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code. That rule lays down that in the case of an assignment of devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. This is what happened in this case. The suit was continued against the Secretary of State to or upon whom the interest of the Company had come or devolved. No authority has been shown me in which Section 80 has been applied to a case such as this. The ruling in Bachchu Singh v. Secretary of State for India 25 A. 187 has no application. I accordingly reject the application.