Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

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