Interpretation of notice under section 80 of CPC

Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu – Petitioner


Union of India – Respondent

The result is that the object underlying Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and similar provision gets defeated. It not only gives rise to avoidable litigation but also results in heavy expense and cost to the exchequer as well. Proper reply can result in reduction of litigation between State and the citizens. In case proper reply is sent either the claim in the notice may be submitted or area of controversy curtailed or the citizen may be satisfied on knowing the stand of the State. There is no accountability in the Government, Central or State or the statutory authorities in violating the spirit and object of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

These provisions cast an implied duty on all concerned governments and States and statutory authorities to send appropriate reply to such notices. Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct all concerned governments, Central or State or other authorities, whenever any statute requires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of suit or other proceedings against it, to nominate, within a period of three months, an officer who shall be made responsible to ensure that replies to notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure or similar provisions are sent within the period stipulated in a particular legislation. The replies shall be sent after due application of mind. Despite such nomination, if the Court finds that either the notice has not been replied or reply is evasive and vague and has been sent without proper application of mind, the Court shall ordinarily award heavy cost against the Government and direct it to take appropriate action against the concerned Officer including recovery of costs from him.

Interpretation of notice under section 80 of CPC

Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and another Appellants


Union of India, Respondent.

“One must construe S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure with some regard to common sense and to the object with which it appears to have been passed…,”

If the terms of the notice in question be scrutinized in this manner it is abundantly clear that the relief claimed by the appellant was the redelivery of the said two trucks or in the alternative payment of Rs. 3500 being the value thereof. The value which was placed by the appellants on the trucks was the then value according to them – a value as on August 1, 1942, the date on which the delivery of the trucks ought to have been given by the respondent to the appellants.


Leave a Reply

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