Notice under Section 80(1) CPC to the Government is mandatory before institution of the suit against the Government, Delhi HC
- 06:30The Delhi HC on June 04, 2021 {JUHI CHAWLA & ORS. vs SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH BOARD & ORS. } held that the notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Government is mandatory before institution of the suit against the Government. It was held that the object of the notice under Section 80(1) is to give an opportunity to the Government to reconsider the matter and to make amends and settle the claim out of Court. It was held that Section 80 was enacted for the advancement of justice for securing public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation.
The Single Judge of Delhi High Court, Justice J.R. Midha, further held that Section 80(1) is imperative and must be strictly complied with and that failure to serve a notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit.
In State of Kerala v. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 178, the Supreme Court observed that a suit filed without compliance of Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be regularized by simply filing an application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The HC held that the plaintiffs’ contention that Section 80(1) notice is an empty formality is contrary to the well settled law and is rejected. The Delhi HC was of the view that the notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary in the present case.
SEC 149 CPC
The HC held that Section 149 of Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to extend the time to pay the deficient Court-fees. It was however held that the challenge sought by the plaintiffs into the validity of the Court-fees Act is not permissible under Section 149 of Code of Civil Procedure. It was further held that all the objections raised by the plaintiffs to the payment of Court-fees are rejected.
GRANT OF LEAVE TO INSTITUTE SUIT
The Delhi HC held that no case for grant of leave to institute the suit is made out under Section 91(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure or to sue in representative interest under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or to maintain the suit without the aforesaid leave/permission, as the plaintiffs’ suit is defective and not maintainable for the following reasons:
- Order VI Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaint shall contain statements of material facts in a concise form but no evidence by which they are to be proved. However, the plaintiffs have not complied with Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as (i) The statement of plaintiffs are not in concise form and (ii) The plaintiffs have incorporated the evidence in the plaint.
- Order VI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the contents of any document shall not be set out in the plaint unless the precise words of the document or any part thereof are material. However, the plaintiffs have not complied with Order VI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and have reproduced the documents in the plaint.
- The plaint is stuffed with unnecessary scandalous, frivolous and vexatious averments which are liable to be struck down under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The plaintiffs have joined 33 defendants in this suit. However, the plaint does not reflect the compliance of Order I Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in joining 33 defendants in one suit.
- The plaintiffs have joined various causes of action without complying with Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs have not verified the plaint which is mandatory under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- In the affidavit filed along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have deposed that only paras 1 to 8 of the plaint are true to their knowledge whereas paras 1 to 169 of the plaint are based on information and legal advice, meaning thereby that the plaintiffs have no personal knowledge of any of the averments made in the plaint. The suit totally based upon information and legal advice is not maintainable.
- Since the plaintiffs have no personal knowledge of any averments made in the plaint and the whole plaint is based on information and legal advice received, it appears that the plaintiffs want an inquiry to be conducted by this Court into the averments made in the plaint which is not permissible in law in these proceedings.
- Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with declaratory suits. A person entitled to any legal character can institute a suit against another person who denies or is interested to deny his right. In the present case, the plaintiffs never approached the defendants claiming any right and therefore, there was no occasion for the defendants to respond or deny to the plaintiffs alleged rights. In that view of the matter, the maintainability of the declaratory reliefs sought by the plaintiffs is doubtful.
- Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with mandatory injunctions. The twin requirements of Section 39 are the existence of an obligation of the defendant towards the plaintiff and the breach thereof by the defendant. Both these requirements are not fulfilled. The maintainability of the mandatory injunctions sought by the plaintiffs are, therefore, doubtful. The plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly for the purpose of Court-fees. The plaintiffs have not given the mandatory notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
A fortiori, the suit was dismissed by the Delhi HC and all other applications were disposed of. The HC held that the plaintiffs have abused and misused the process of law which has resulted in waste of judicial time. The cost of Rs.20 lakhs was imposed on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were directed to deposit the cost of Rs.20 lakhs with Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) within one week by the HC. It was held that if the cost is not deposited within one week, DSLSA shall recover the same from the plaintiffs in accordance with law. It was directed that DSLSA shall utilize this cost for the cause of the victims of road accidents.
The HC lastly observed that during the course of the hearing of this suit, the Court proceedings were disrupted thrice by the unknown miscreants who continued the disruptions despite repeated warnings. The Delhi HC issued show cause notice to the persons who disrupted the Court proceedings as to why the proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them. It was directed that the Delhi Police shall identify the persons and serve the notice on them.