Khanna and Hardy JJ. ( 1 ) THE short question, which arises for determiation in this Regular First appeal filed by Hasish Chandcrp a ntily appellant against Union of India, is whether the appellant served a valid notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below answered the question in the negative and dismissed the plaintiffs suit on that ground alone. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that in December 1948 the Assistant Controller. Printing and Stationary, Estern Punjab Railway, placed an order wi (h thj plaintiff for the Binding of 23000 Guard Limp Cover Piles. The files were to be stitched in books with three patches of cloth parted inside. The plaintiff carried out the work and delivered the files after doing the needful. A dispute then arose between the parties with regard the rate at which the plaintiff was to be paid for the work done by him. According to the plaintiff, the payment for the work done was to be made at the rate of eight annas per file, whereas the railway authoriies allege that the Payment was to be made in accordance with the rate- mentioned in the Government Schedule. The railway authorities paid Rs. 4,076. 00/ 3. 00 to the plaintiff in accordance with the rates mentioned in the Government Schedule. The plaintiff on the other hand claimed that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,500. 00 at the rate of eight annas per file. After givi- ng credit for the amount already received, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 7. 42/13. 00 against the defendant. According to the plaintiff. before filing the suit he served a notice through his counsel Mr. Radhey Mohan Lal, Advocate on 22nd May 1950 on the competent officers and the Governirent under the section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 3 ) THE defendant in the written statement admitted the receipt of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure but challenged the validity of the same. A number of other pleas were raised, but we aie not concerned with them. Issue No. 1, as framed in the case was :- 1st, Is the notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure invalid ? A number of other pleas were raised, but we aie not concerned with them. Issue No. 1, as framed in the case was :- 1st, Is the notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure invalid ? ( 4 ) THE trial Court derided issues other than issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. It as held that the railway authorities had specifically agrreed to make payment to the plaintiff at the rate of eight Annas per file and that the plaintiff was entitled to receive Rs. 11,500. 00 Issue No. 1 was, however, decided against the plaintiff, and in view of the finding on issue No. 1 the suit was dismissed ( 5 ) IN appeal Mr. Aggarwal on behalf of the appellant has assailed the finding of the Court below on issue No. 1 and has contended that the notice, original of which has been produced by the defendant and has been n. arked as Exhibit D6, was valid and in accordance with law. As against that, Mr Nanak Chand on behalf of the respondent has canvassed for the correctness of the view of the Court below. After hearing the learned counsel we are of the view that the conteation advanced on behalf of the appellant must prevail. ( 6 ) NOTICE Exhibit D-6, which was sent by Mr. Radhey Mohan Lal on behalf of the plaintiff on 22nd May 1950, was according to its heading, addressed to (!) the Central Government of India through the Ministry of Railway. New Delhi and (2) the. Administrative Officer, Eastern Punjab Railway, New Delhi. At the foot of the notice, the following words were added:- "the above notice is being sent to the Chief Administrative Officer, E P. R. Delhi under the Indian Railways Act. "according to section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure notice in the rase of suit against the Central Gavernment where it relates to a railway, has to be addressed to the General Manager of the railway. It would, however, appear that so far as the Eastern Punjab Railway is con- cerned there was, at the relevant time, no General Manager of that rail- way. As it was a small ralway its admini^rntive organization was retain- ed on a lower level and instead of a General Manager it had a Chief Ad- unini jtrative Office. It would, however, appear that so far as the Eastern Punjab Railway is con- cerned there was, at the relevant time, no General Manager of that rail- way. As it was a small ralway its admini^rntive organization was retain- ed on a lower level and instead of a General Manager it had a Chief Ad- unini jtrative Office. This is clear from the f> )!lowing observations on page 12 of the memorandum on the forirntion of Northern, Nor. h Eastern and Ea. -tern Zones : - "thirdly, after the partition, the setting up of the Eastern Punjab Railway was, right from the outset, considered only a tempirirv arrangement pending its absorption into one of the northern railways as a part of a larger system. It was too small a railway and had no workshop facilities. The administrative organisation has for this riason been int.-ntionally retained on a lover level under a Chief Administrative Officer and not a General Manager as with other main systems. "as the Chief Administrative officer had taken the place of General Manager in the case of Eastern Punjab Railway k is obvious that a notice served on the Chief Administrative officer o*~ the Eastern Punjab Railway would constit . ne substantial comph nce with law. ( 7 ) MR. Nanak Chand has argued thut the notice in the preseat cae was addressed to the Administrative Officer of the Eastern Punjab Railway and not to the Chief Administrative Olficer of that railway, and therefore, it was an invalid notice. In this respect we find that it was specifically mentioned on the notice, as stated above, that it was being sent to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Eastern Punjab Railway. The fact that the words "chitf Administrative Officer" were not mentioned on ths top of the notice but were mentined at its botton would not affect the validity of the notice. The postal acknowledgement Exhibit P. I ) shows that the notice was received in the headquarter office of Eastern Punjab Railway, Delhi, because the acknowledgement bears the the seal of the office. The postal acknowledgement Exhibit P. I ) shows that the notice was received in the headquarter office of Eastern Punjab Railway, Delhi, because the acknowledgement bears the the seal of the office. The object of giving a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is manifestly to give the government or tha public officer sufficient notice of the case which is proposed to be brought against it or him so that it or he may consider the position and decide for itself or himself whether the claim of the plaintiff should be accepted or resisted. In order to enable the Government or the public officer to arrive at adecision it is neccsary that it or he should be informed of the nature of the suit proposed to be filed against it or him and the facts on which the claim is founded and the pro cise reliefs asked for. See in this connection ihe State of Madras versus C. P. Agencies Das C J. , speaking for the Court in that case. observed that though the terms of this section are to be strictly complied with, that does not mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinized in a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced from conmonense. In Union of Indi v. The Landra Engineering and Foundary Works Phillaur a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court held that the provisions of notice unnder section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not intended to be used as a trap for defecting the claimants suits against the Government. The principle, which should guide in such cases, in oar opinion is that though the service of notice under section 80 is imperative and cannot be dispensed with, the Courts should not takea hypertechnical or over-pedantic view in deciding about the validity of the notice. There has to be a broad commonsense approach to the problem and once the Courts find that there has been a substantial compliance with law, they would be chary to non-suit plaintiff, having ajust claim, because of some fanciful breach, insignificant omission or minor infraction of a technical nature. Keeping the above principle in view, we have not doubt in our mind that the notice Exhibit D. 6, which was sent on behalf of the plaintiff, was valid and substantially in conformity with law. ( 8 ) MR. Keeping the above principle in view, we have not doubt in our mind that the notice Exhibit D. 6, which was sent on behalf of the plaintiff, was valid and substantially in conformity with law. ( 8 ) MR. Nanakchand on behalf of the respondent has referred to Saudhya Trading Co. v. Governor-General Dominion of India, but the Facts of that case are clearly distinguishable. In that case the notice, which was held to be invalid, was addressed to the Secretary, of the Railway Board and not to the General Manager of the Railway concerned. In Union of India v. M/s. Shamsuddin Waizuddin, the notice, which was held to be invalid, was sent to the Secretary Union of India Railway Department. Only a copy of that notice was sent to the General Manager, Ea t lndia Railway. In S. N. Dutt v. Union of India, a notice was given by M/s S. N. Dutt and Comp any, and the suit was filed by S. N. Dutt, sole proprietor of the business carried on under the name and style of S. N. Dutt and Company. It was held that there should be identity of the person who issued the notice with the person who brings the suit. As the person giving the notice was not the same as the person suing. the provisions of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with. All the above mentioned authoities were decided on their own facts which were substantially different from those of the present case. and, in our opinion, the respondent cannot derive much assistance from those authorities. So far as the present case is concerned, the notice, sent on behalf of the plaintiff, was, as observed earlier, substantially in conformity with law. ( 9 ) WE, accordingly, reverse the finding of the Court below on issue No. 1 and award a decree for recovery of Rs. 7,423/13- in favour of the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent with costs of both the Courts.