High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Compliance with Section 80 CPC is Mandatory: Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Adverse Possession Case”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in a ruling pronounced on May 31, 2024, dismissed an appeal challenging the maintainability of a suit filed without the mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The suit, initially filed by Sher Singh (since deceased) through his legal representatives and others, sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession of agricultural land. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain, reaffirmed the necessity of serving notice before instituting a suit against the government or public officers.

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of agricultural land in Raipur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, claiming adverse possession for over 60 years. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, asserting that implied permission was granted due to the urgent nature of the suit. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, citing non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 CPC. This prompted the plaintiffs to file a second appeal, which has now been dismissed by the High Court.

Mandatory Nature of Section 80 CPC: The court emphasized the critical importance of Section 80 CPC, which stipulates that no suit can be filed against the government or public officers unless the requisite notice has been served. “Compliance with Section 80 CPC is a condition precedent for instituting a suit against the Government or public officers,” the court stated, highlighting that this provision aims to give the government a chance to address grievances outside of court and avoid unnecessary litigation.

Plaintiffs’ Argument and Court’s Rebuttal: The plaintiffs argued that the suit’s urgent nature and the trial court’s registration implied permission for non-compliance with Section 80 CPC. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that merely filing an application under Section 80(2) does not equate to the court granting leave. The court stated, “The legislative intent is clear: service of notice under Section 80(1) is imperative unless urgent and immediate relief is warranted, and even then, leave of the court is a condition precedent.”

The judgment cited several Supreme Court precedents, including State of A.P. v. M/s Pioneer Builders, A.P., to underscore the mandatory nature of Section 80 CPC. The court reiterated that non-compliance with Section 80 renders a suit non-maintainable, and the legislative intent is to provide the government with an opportunity to settle claims outside of court.

Justice Pankaj Jain remarked, “The object of Section 80 is the advancement of justice and securing of public good by avoiding unnecessary litigation. Compliance with Section 80 CPC has been repeatedly held to be mandatory.”

The High Court’s ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s dedication to upholding procedural requirements in litigation involving government entities. By dismissing the appeal, the court reinforces the necessity of adhering to the mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 CPC. This decision sets a significant precedent, underscoring the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules to promote judicial efficiency and reduce unnecessary litigation.

Date of Decision: May 31, 2024

Sher Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana through Collector, Kurukshetra

Similar News