ORDER : 1. Civil Revns. Nos.84, 85, 86 and 87, all of 1951 arising out of similar suits by different persons were heard together and this order governs all of them. 2. These are revisions against the order dated 24-9-51 in five suits in the Court of the Munsiff, Sehore. These suits were for a declaration of right to certain different lands, filed against the Government of Bhopal and the Bhopal Sugar Factory Ltd Notice under S.80, Civil P.C., was said to have been given to the Government and served. The notice, a copy of which is filed on record, is addressed to the Secretary of State India, New Delhi, the Collector Sehore and the Manager Sugar Industries, Sehore. A similar notice was said to have been given by the different plaintiffs in the different suits. 2a. On behalf of the Government of Bhopal, it was contended that the notice was not valid and proper and as such the plaint was liable to be rejected. The learned Munsiff found that the notice in each case was defective but for reasons recorded by him ordered that the cases be postponed to enable the parties to issue proper notices. It is this order which is common to all the suits that is challenged. 3. It may be noted that Union of India was not a party to the suit and yet it has joined as an applicant in all the revision petitions. On being questioned how the Union of India could join in these petitions, it was conceded that as the notice was given to the Central Government, the latter by its proper description had a right to object. In my opinion, however, so long as the Union of India was not sued and joined as a party to the suit, it could not come on the scene as even if a decree were to be passed, in the long run it could not bind the Union. As such the revision as it is instituted by the Union of India is not tenable and is liable to be rejected. 4. On behalf of the non-applicants it was said that the plea of invalidity of the notice was not pointed' out in the reply which the plaintiffs received nor was it taken in the written-statement and, therefore, should not be allowed. 4. On behalf of the non-applicants it was said that the plea of invalidity of the notice was not pointed' out in the reply which the plaintiffs received nor was it taken in the written-statement and, therefore, should not be allowed. It must, however, appear that it is not the duty of the opposite party to point out the defects in the essential preliminaries which have to be gone through before a suit is filed and he can make an objection during the suit itself whether by an application or in the written-statement. In the cases on hand, the counsel for the contesting defendant filed his preliminary objection to the tenability of the suit by an application and urged that it be decided first as it went to the root of the case I am clear that this was not at all improper or illegal and the Court has rightly taken notice of it. It was then said by the respondent's counsel that Government was merely a formal defendant and as such invalidity or otherwise of the notice did not come in the way of the tenability of the suit. In Registrar, Co-operative Societies Bihar v. Ramkishun Mannar, AIR 1939 Pat 32, it has been held that : "The provisions of the section cannot be relaxed merely because the Government or the Public Officer happens to be only one of several defendants." and in Province of Madras v. Yikrama Deo Verma, AIR 1943 Mad 284 , it has been held that: "Even where the Government or the public officer is only a pro forma defendant, a notice under this section is necessary." It would thus appear that the contention falls through. 5. Turning then to the main question for consideration viz., whether the notices given in these suits were valid and proper as required under S.80 of the Code, it would appear that it is essential that the notice must state the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims. The question is whether the notices given in these five suits at least substantially comply with these requirements. A perusal of the copy of the notice shows firstly that it is not dated nor does it purport to have been signed by anybody. The question is whether the notices given in these five suits at least substantially comply with these requirements. A perusal of the copy of the notice shows firstly that it is not dated nor does it purport to have been signed by anybody. A perusal of even the whole notice does not clearly indicate what the cause of action is. It appears that some lands were taken over by the Bhopal State Government for certain purposes on certain understanding. It is not stated in the notice as to when the agreement was made, with whom it was made, what the terms of it were and what lands were taken over. It would also appear that the description of the lands which appears to be the subject-matter of the notice, is not stated. Under the caption of numbers of fields neither the numbers nor the area nor assessment is stated but only the names of certain fields are entered in the notice. It is not even known where they are situated. It would also appear that the notice claims restoration of tie fields to the person who gave the notice while the relief claimed in the suit is of a mere declaration of right. It is impossible to hold that the notice even substantially complies with the requirements of S.80, Civil P.C. "The object of the Legislature in requiring the notice under this section is to afford the defendant an opportunity to reconsider the question with regard to the claim made, and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised, without recourse to the trouble and cost of litigation." Vide Chandulal Vadilal v. Government of the Province of Bombay, AIR 1943 Bom 138. 6. I am perfectly clear that the notice is far from proper or valid and as such I find that the suit could not be entertained against the Government. It would appear that the section is mandatory and admits of no exemptions or exceptions and a Court is debarred from entertaining a suit instituted without complying with the requirements of the section. The only course open to the Court in a suit instituted without giving the notice required will be to reject it under O.7, R.11 of the Code. 7. The only course open to the Court in a suit instituted without giving the notice required will be to reject it under O.7, R.11 of the Code. 7. It would then appear that where a suit is instituted against several defendants one of whom is the Government and the notice under this section has not been given, the whole suit is not bad but is so only with reference to the Government. Secretary of State v. Amarnath, AIR 1936 Pat 339. This is, however, so where the causes of action against the Government or other defendants are inseparable (sic). In the cases on hand, the cause of action itself is not clear but it appears that the Sugar Factory, defendant 2 is alleged to have stepped in the shoes of the Government in the matter of the interference with the right of the plaintiffs. That being so, in my opinion, the causes of action against the two defendants are not separable and as such the whole suit is bad. That being so, when the learned Munsiff himself found that the notices in all these five suits were defective, the proper order should have been rejection of the plaints as against all the defendants under O.7, R.11 of the Code. 8. The revision petition, therefore, in so far as it is filed by the Union of India, is rejected; but in so far as it is filed by the State of Bhopal, is allowed with costs against the non-applicants who shall bear their own costs. The plaints in all these suits are rejected under O.7, R.11, Civil P.C., and the plaintiffs shall pay the costs of the defendants in the above suits. Counsel's fees for each party will be Rs.10, if certified. Order accordingly.