M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated September 25, 1980, whereby the learned Additional Munsif No. 2, Bikaner, confirmed the leave granted on 18.10.1978 by the court to institute a suit without serving any notice under Section 80, CPC.
(2.) HE plaintiff -non -petitioner No. 1 Satyapal Mehta instituted a suit on 17.10.1978 praying for the following reliefs: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Along with, the plaint he submitted an application for the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, CPC, in which he prayed that the defendants be restrained from implementing the orders dated October' 5, 1978, and October 14, 1978 arid that the defendants No. 5 to 7 may not be promoted affecting the plaintiff's right of promotion. Notice of this application was ordered to be issued on 18.10.1978 and no interim order Was passed thereon The plaintiff also moved an application under Sub -section (2) of Section 80, CPC, in which he stated that the plaintiff has sought an immediate or urgent relief and in case the relief is not granted the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Permission was sought to institute the suit without service of notice tinder Section 80, CPC. The learned Additional Munsif on October 18, 1978, passed an order that provisional permission is given to the plaintiff to institute the suit without notice under Section 80, CPC, looking to the reliefs prayed for in the plaint and also looking to the application for the grant of temporary' injunction. It was also ordered that notice of application under Section 80, CPC, be issued and the plaint shall be registered only after order on the application under Section 80, CPC. The application for the grant of leave to sue without service of notice under Section 80, CPC, was resisted by the defendants and this application ultimately could be heard on September 25, 1980. The learned Court observed that the application for the grant of temporary injunction was dismissed, as the fame had become anfractuous, but as the plaintiff has prayed for restraining the defendants from giving effect to the order of promotion of the defendants No. 5, 6 and 7, so the suit becomes of urgent nature Treating the suit in which an urgent and immediate relief is claimed, the provisional permission granted on October 18, 1978, was confirmed and the Court did not act under the proviso to Sub -section (2) of Section 80, CPC, thereby did not order the return of the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of Sub -section (1) of Section 80, CPC.
(3.) DIS -satisfied with this order the Union of India and its three other officers have approached this Court under Section 115, CPC.;