BOMBAY HIGH COURT

                                         Mahadev Dattatraya Rajarshi

                                                         Vs

                                                Secretary of State

                                        (A Marten, Kt., C.J. Patkar, J.)

                                                   24.01.1930

                                                  JUDGMENT

Patkar, J.
1. The plaintiff's father in this case gave notice to the Secretary of State for India in Council on
August 17, 1925. The plaintiff's father died on September 17, 1925, and the present suit was
brought on December 23, 1925. After the institution of the suit the plaintiff gave notice on
December 28, 1925. The notice given by the plaintiff after the institution of the suit is useless.

2. The only question in this appeal is whether the notice given by the plaintiff's father on August
17, 1925, is a valid notice under a 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 80, " no suit
shall be instituted against the Secretary of State for India in Council,...until the expiration of two
months next after notice in writing has been, in the case of the Secretary of State in Council
delivered to, or left at the office of, a Secretary to the Local Government or the Collector of the
District,...stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff
and the relief which he claims ". The notice, therefore, must contain the name of the actual
plaintiff who would bring the suit. It is clear, therefore, from the wording of Section 80 that
notice must be given by the person who becomes the plaintiff and by no other.

3. In Bachchu Singh v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1902) I.L.R. 25 All, 187 it
was held that the language of Section 424 is imperative, and absolutely debars a Court from
entertaining a suit instituted without compliance with the provisions of the section. At p. 191 it
was observed :-

If we acceded to this contention, it appears to us that we should be adding words to Section 424
which find no place in it. It would be necessary to add after the words' 'name and place of abode
of the intending plaintiff' some such words as 'or of the party through whom such intending
plaintiff claims.' Those remarks apply with greater force to the present Section 80 in which the
word " intending" has been omitted. We think, therefore, that the view taken by the lower Court
is correct.

4. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the word "plaintiff" is defined in the Indian
Limitation Act as "including any person from or through whom a plaintiff derives his right to
sue". That definition has not been adopted by the legislature in the Civil Procedure Code, and
would not govern Section 80 of the Code, and it must, therefore, follow that the actual plaintiff
who brings the suit must give notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code.

5. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.