Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) THE suit has been dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) on account of non -service of notice under section 80 of C.P.C. We have gone through section 80(2) of the C.P.C. there we find that for grant of urgent or immediate relief against the Government suit is to be instituted with the leave of the Court, with a proviso that if the Court finds after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, shall return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub -section (1) i.e. relating to service. Therefore, according to us, two necessary things are required to be looked before passing any order dismissing the suit if the notice is not served; (i) Whether at all the suit can be dismissed. (ii) If not, what steps can be taken.
(2.) SECTION 80 CPC speaks that in case there is any necessity to get an urgent or immediate relief against the Government then and then alone the requirement of notice is under section 80 to be served upon the Government. Therefore, other things are to be seen whether the notice will be served upon a party governmental respondent irrespective of any relief sought for in the plain or not. In the instant case, no relief has been sought as against the Government. According to the plaintiff, the Government is an proper party. No urgent or immediate relief is sought for against the Government. Therefore, we do not find as to why the suit will be dismissed only on such ground. It is a clear case of misconception of law and unfortunately the plaintiff is the victim of the circumstances. Secondly, even if Government is the necessary party, it will be seen whether the urgent or immediate relief is sought for against the Government or not. If no such claim is made then the plaint will be returned to take appropriate steps. No direction has been given of such nature even when found that no urgent or immediate relief is required for the purpose. The suit has been dismissed for non -service of such notice. Moreso, under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. there are several grounds for rejection of plaint inclusive of the ground of nondisclosure of cause of action, under valuation or no appropriate valuation, barred by any law or for other grounds incorporated by the recent amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure with effect from 1st July, 2002. But no such ground has been made available under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. that the suit is liable to be dismissed on account or non -service of notice under section 80 CPC to the Government. It is not only implied as per the provision of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC but also explicit on the basis of the proviso under section 80(2) C.P.C. Therefore, we find that the decree for dismissal of suit passed by the Court below is not sustainable at all. Hence, the same is set aside by the Court upon hearing the parties on the informal papers since only question of law involved. Thus, the appeal is allowed. However, no order is passed as to costs. Vinod Chandra Misra, J. I agree. ;