Section 80 CPC notice cannot be cured retrospectively by notice served during a pending suit.

The petitioner brought Title Suit No. 85/2022 seeking declaration of right, title and interest in, and recovery of possession of, two parcels of land allegedly purchased under registered sale deeds in 1967 and 1972.

The respondents’ written statement asserted that the lands had been converted from patta land to Khas land. The petitioner then sought to amend the plaint and implead the Circle Officer, Lakhipur Revenue Circle, including a request for correction of revenue records. The Trial Court rejected an earlier application on the ground that no notice under Section 80 CPC had been served. After that rejection, the petitioner issued a Section 80 notice and filed a further application for impleadment and amendment, which was also rejected. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 80(1) CPC requires written notice to the Government or public officer, followed by expiry of two months, before instituting a suit against them in respect of an act purportedly done in official capacity; the requirement is mandatory, subject to exceptions provided by the statute.

A notice served after institution of the suit cannot retrospectively cure non-compliance with that condition precedent.

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction, which does not warrant interference absent an error of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s combined impleadment and amendment requests were contrary to the Gauhati High Court Civil Rules and Orders, and that the amendment was interlinked with impleadment.

The Circle Officer was sought to be added as a defendant in a suit already instituted without prior Section 80 notice. Although the petitioner served notice after the first application was rejected, the Court held that this later service could not satisfy Section 80(1)’s pre-institution requirement.

Because the proposed amendment was interlinked with impleadment, and the amendment also sought a direction to alter the land’s revenue classification and record the petitioner as pattadar, the Trial Court was justified in refusing the application.

The Court found no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice warranting Article 227 intervention.

It observed that the petitioner could apply to the Trial Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit after complying with Section 80 CPC, subject to any other applicable legal limitation.