1. This Is a revision by the second defendant against the order, dated 21-4-1972. passed by the District Judge. Bilaspur, setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 21-8-1971. passed in Civil Suit No. 32-A of 1971. The trial Judge had held that the Court at Bilaspur had no jurisdiction to try the suit and, therefore, the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to proper Court, namely, the Court at Janjgir, where both the parties reside. On an appeal, the learned District Judge, however, set aside that order and held that the Court at Bilaspur had jurisdiction to try the suit as the notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure being a part of the cause of action, furnished the Bilaspur Court jurisdiction to try the suit as the notice had been served on the Collector, Bilaspur, who accepted it on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh. That view of the learned District Judge was based on the view of Sharma, J. in State v. Prem Narayan Gupta Civil Revn. No, 90 of 1959 (Gwalior Bench) = 1960 Jab LJ (N.) 301. Sharma, J., laying down that proposition, had relied on the case of Raj Kumar Shaw v. Dominion of India. AIR 1953 Cal 235. decided by Bachawat. J. (as he then was) and the case of PratapChandra Biswas v. Union of India, AIR 1956 Assam 85.
2. When the present case went before a learned Single Judge of this Court, he referred the matter to a larger Bench to decide whether the case of Civil Revn. No. 90 of 1959 (Gwalior Bench) = (1960 Jab LJ (N.) 301) (supra) had been rightly decided. In subsequent cases the Calcutta High Court itself has taken a contrary view laying down that a notice under Section 80. C. P. C. is no part of the cause of action, but the cause of action is always antecedent to such a notice. That was what was laid down by A. N. Ray. J. in Jaharlal Pagalia v. Union of India, AIR 1959 Cal 273. This view of A. N. Ray, J. (as he then was) finds support from the view as expressed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Niranjan Agarwalla v. Union of India. AIR 1960 Cal 391. where Mukharji, J. and Bose J. in their separate judgments expressed the opinion unequivocally that a notice 'under Section 80. C. P. C. not being a part of the cause of action, the place wherefrom the notice is issued would not confer jurisdiction on the Court of that place. The same thing, in our opinion, can be said about the place where the notice is served. Thus, where a statutory notice is required to be issued on the Government the mere fact that the notice is issued from a particular place or is sent to some other place will not confer jurisdiction on the Courts of those places. But the question of jurisdiction will have to be decided on other considerations. To that extent we are certainly in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1960 Cal 391 (supra). We may observe that a Single Bench of the Patna High Court in Union of India v. Kedar Prasad. AIR 1970 Pat 212 followed the Division Bench view of the Calcutta High Court and expressed the opinion that the view as expressed in the earlier case of Raj Kumar Shaw v. Dominion of India. AIR 1953 Cal 235 (supra) and the case of AIR 1956 Assam 85 (supra) stood impliedly overruled on account of the subsequent pronouncement of the Calcutta High Court in the said Division Bench case of AIR 1960 Cal 391 (supra).
3. The learned counsel for the first respondent, however, urged that the present case would be distinguishable from the Calcutta case inasmuch as the first respondent has claimed relief against the Collector. Bilaspur, in the matter of cancellation of the licence granted by him in favour of the first respondent or his Benamidar. However, that is not a matter for our decision as the learnedSingle Judge has referred to us only the question whether the case of Civil Revn. No. 90 of 1959 (Gwalior Bench) = (1960 Jab LJ (N) 301) (supra) was correctly decided and according to the learned Single Judge, that decision needs reconsideration in view of the subsequent pronouncement of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. It may be open to the learned Single Judge to decide that question. However, we are bound by the reference made to us and we answer the reference by stating that the case of Civil Eevn. No. 90 of 1959 (Gwalior Bench) = (1960 Jab LJ (N) 301) (supra) was not correctly decided and accordingly, we overrule the same.
4. With this opinion of ours, let the case be returned to the learned Single Judge for passing an appropriate order in the light of the opinion given by us. Further we direct that there shall foe no order' as to costs of the proceedings before the Division Bench.