Objection to notice under Section 80 CPC can only be raised by the State, not private litigants.

The petitioner (defendant) challenged two orders of the Trial Court: first, the acceptance of a plaint without ensuring compliance with Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); and second, the rejection of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit.

The dispute involved private parties regarding agricultural land, where the Tahsildar and Collector were impleaded as formal defendants.

The petitioner argued that the suit was maintainable only if a separate notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the Tahsildar (Defendant No. 3), as the notice was only issued to the Collector.

Section 80 CPC, which mandates a two-month notice period before instituting a suit against the Government or a public officer.

The principle that the object of Section 80 is to allow the State to settle claims and avoid unnecessary litigation.

Gaja v. Dasa Koeri (AIR 1964 All 471) and Raj Kumari v. Board of Revenue (1984 SCC OnLine All 664) to establish that Section 80 is for the benefit of the State and can be waived by the authority concerned.

Gangappa Gurupadappa Gugwad v. Rachawwa (1970 3 SCC 716), which holds that a plaint cannot be mechanically rejected if no relief is claimed against the State.

Ghulam Rasool v. State of J & K (AIR 1983 SC 1188), which confirms that notice to the Collector is sufficient compliance under Section 80(1)(c).

The court reasoned that Section 80 is an evidentiary and procedural safeguard intended for the advancement of justice, not a weapon for private defendants to defeat legitimate suits.

Since the State or the public officer did not object to the lack of notice, the right to notice was deemed waivable; a private party has no locus standi to plead a bar under Section 80 that is intended solely for the protection of public officers.

The court observed that the litigation was primarily between private parties and the State was a formal party with no substantive interest in the lis.

Regarding the technicality of service, the court clarified that under Section 80(1)(c) CPC, delivering notice to the Collector satisfies the requirement for a suit against the State Government, and a separate notice to the Tahsildar was unnecessary.

The High Court found no error in the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint. The Civil Revision was consequently dismissed.

Notice to the Collector was sufficient.