ORDER : 1. This order will govern Civil Revision No.88 of 1951, by the State of Bhopal and Union of India, against Laxminarayan and another as in both the revisions the same point has arisen for decision. The revisions are against the order dated 24-9-51 in civil suits Nos.130 and 250 of 1951 respectively in the Court of the Munsiff, Sehore. 2. The first suit is for recovery of a certain amount due from the Municipal Board, Sehore while the second suit is for a declaration of right in respect of some property against Padamsingh and Government of Bhopal. The defendants in the first suit are the Local Self Government Bhopal through the Secretary, Local Self Government, Bhopal and the Municipal Board, Sehore through the Executive Officer. The defendants in the second suit are Padamsingh and Government of Bhopal through the Revenue Secretary, Bhopal. In both the suits, notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., said to have been given to the Secretary, Revenue and Local Self Government Department, Bhopal. No notice was given to the Central Government or the Union of India. In both the suits a contention was made that the notice was not given to a proper person for the Central Government and as such the plaint was liable to be rejected. The point for determination in both the suits was whether the notice was valid and proper and if not, what effect. 3. The learned Munsiff found that the notices were defective, but the reasons for such finding are nowhere stated. For reasons recorded by him in his order, the learned Munsiff ordered that the cases be postponed for three months to enable the parties to give fresh notices to the Government. It is this order that is now challenged. 4. Not only the State of Bhopal and department of Local Self Government of Bhopal are the applicants but even the Union of India has joined the petition of revision and when questioned how it could join without being a party to the suit, it was conceded before me that the Union of India could not join in the petition. As such the revision by the Union of India is liable to be rejected. 5. It is obvious that the order is illegal and cannot be sustained. As such the revision by the Union of India is liable to be rejected. 5. It is obvious that the order is illegal and cannot be sustained. After the administration of the Bhopal State was taken over by the President, the State of Bhopal is a centrally administered area called part 'C' State, under the Constitution. 6. Under Section 80, Civil P.C., "no suit shall be instituted against the Government ....etc." The question is what is the Government in regard to the Bhopal State which is centrally administered. Under Section 3, General Clauses Act, as amended by the Adaptation and Extension of Laws and Changes in the Constitution, Clause 60 of the section lays down that : "State Government as respects anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution shall mean, in a part 'C' State, the Central Government." Under Section 3, cl.(8), the definition of Central Government is found and in sub-clause (b) it is found that "in relation to the administration of a part 'C' State, the Chief Commissioner (is?) acting within the scope of authority given to him under Article 239 or 243 of the Constitution." In the circumstances, it is obvious that the notice should have been given to the Central Government as pointed out above. The notice, therefore, to the Secretary of the Revenue and Local Self Government Department, Bhopal, is not proper or valid. 7. It would then appear that Section 80 of the Code is mandatory and was provided for affording the defendant an opportunity to consider his position 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. - (Chandulal Vadilal v. Govt. of the Province of Bombay', AIR 1943 Bom 138 (A).), 8. Under Section 79, Civil P.C., in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case my be, shall be, in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government, (the Union of India.) It would thus appear that not only the notice, but the suit, as brought against the Local Self Government or the Government of Bhopal, through the Revenue Secretary, is bad. Under Section 80 of the Code, "no suit shall be instituted against the Government .. .. Under Section 80 of the Code, "no suit shall be instituted against the Government .. .. etc., until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of .... etc." The effect of the absence of such valid and proper notice, therefore, as required under the said section, is that the plaint was liable to be rejected. In both the suits, the causes of action, as against the two defendants could not be separated and as such the whole suit was bad and the plaints in both the suits were liable to be rejected, under Order 7, R.11, Civil P.C. The order of the learned Munsiff is, therefore, illegal and improper and is liable to be set aside. 9. The result is that the revision petitions, in so far as they are instituted by the Union of India, are liable to be rejected and are accordingly rejected, but in so far as filed by the State of Bhopal and the Department of Local Self Government are entitled to be allowed. The revision petitions are, therefore, accordingly allowed with costs against the non-applicants who shall bear their own costs. The plaints in both the suits are reflected with costs, under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code and the plaintiffs shall pay the costs of the defendants in the suits. Counsel's fees in this Court will be Rs.10/- for each side, if certified in time. Order accordingly.