Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of A.K. Rath, J., quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition which was filed to challenge the order passed by the trial court wherein it returned the plaint for non-compliance notice under Section 80(1) CPC.

The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners had instituted the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit house and delivery of possession. Sri Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu bije, Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri, had been arrayed as proforma defendant.

The main contention here by the defendants is that notice under Section 80 CPC was not complied with.

The counsel for petitioner Mr. A.P. Bose submitted that neither the State nor its functionaries were parties to the suit and The Administrator of Sri Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu is a creature of the statute. That the Trial Court had committed manifest illegality in holding that notice under Section 80 CPC has not been complied with. The cardinal requirement under this section is that either the State or any public officer has to be a party to the suit to attract the provision of Section 80(1) of CPC.

The Court placing reliance on the case of Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, (1984) 2 SCC 627, upheld the above-mentioned contention of the petitioner and quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition. [Anupama Jena v. Bansidhar Jena,2018 SCC OnLine Ori 431, decided on 14-12-2018]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.