1. The lower appellate Court has held that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the notice requisite under Section 80, Civil P.C., is defective. The suit was to set aside a revenue sale in respect of a certain holding in Nileshwar village, South Kanara District. The notice mentioned R.S. No. 722/4-A. It is now admitted that the sale that actually took place and in respect of which the plaintiff claims relief is of B. Section No. 722/4-A. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the error in the notice arose on account of a bona fide clerical mistake and substantially the conditions required by Section 80, Civil P.C., have been complied with. He also relied on the ruling in Venkatarama Krishniar v. Secy of State A.I.R. 13 1926. I do not agree that an error in the description of the subject-matter of the suit is an insubstantial error. I may also add that there is no evidence in this case that the error was bona fide and due to an accidental slip. There can be no doubt that the particulars required by Section 80, Civil P.C., to be set out in the notice should be accurately given. The ruling in Venkatarama Krishniar v. Secy of State A.I.R. 13 1926 which was relied on cannot help the appellant in this case, because the error here is fundamental. The second appeal is dismissed with costs - one set. Leave refused.