Skip to content


U.R. Agarwal Vs. Brahm Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rev. No. 174 of 1975, converted in F.A.F.O. No. 47 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1976All243
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80 - Order 39, Rule 1
AppellantU.R. Agarwal
RespondentBrahm Singh and ors.
Advocates:S.C. Mathur, Adv.
DispositionAppeal rejected
Excerpt:
civil - notice - section 80 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - public officers impleaded in a suit for their acts purporting to have been done by them in their official capacity - no notice under section 80 - held, suit defective. - .....j.1. the plaintiff applicant filed this revision against an order dated 31-5-1975 passed by the civil judge, lucknow dismissing the plaintiff's application for interim injunction. the learned counsel for the applicant, however, statedtoday before me that the revision against that order was not maintainable and that the revision petition may be treated as a f. a. f. o. i have consequently treated this revision petition as a f. a. f. o.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant at length and have also gone through the impugned order. the appellant seems to have challenged the official actg of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 who are public officers. the state government was not impleaded in the suit on the ground that no formal agreement was executed in terms of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T.S. Misra, J.

1. The plaintiff applicant filed this revision against an order dated 31-5-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Lucknow dismissing the plaintiff's application for interim injunction. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, statedtoday before me that the revision against that order was not maintainable and that the revision petition may be treated as a F. A. F. O. I have consequently treated this revision petition as a F. A. F. O.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant at length and have also gone through the impugned order. The appellant seems to have challenged the official actg of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 who are public officers. The State Government was not impleaded in the suit on the ground that no formal agreement was executed in terms of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution. The fact, however, remains that the opposite parties have been impleaded in the suit in their official capacity impugning their act purporting to have been done by them in that capacity.

That being so, it was necessary for the plaintiff-appellant to have given a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code before instituting the suit against the opposite parties. The learned Civil Judge has refused to grant interim injunction on the ground that no notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code having been given, the suit itself was defective. In my view, the learned Civil Judge was correct in holding so. I find no merits in this appeal. It is accordingly rejected under Order XLI, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //