Short Note : 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Sadique Mohammad, the respondent in this appeal, was a teacher in Primary School, Adegaon, Tahsil Lakhnadaun, District Chhindwara. Sometime in 1956 the school was taken over by the Tribal Welfare Department. On 19th September 1962 the respondent was transferred to Bhimpur by order of the Area Organizer. On 24th September 1962 the respondent was suspended by order of the Collector Betul. There was a departmental enquiry on certain charges which was held by the District Organizer, Tribal Welfare Department. The District Organizer by his order dated 31st October 1963 dismissed the respondent from service. On 1st January 1964, a notice was issued by the respondent under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this notice no reference was made to the order of dismissal. All that was alleged in the notice was that the order of suspension passed by the Collector on 24th September 1962 was invalid and that the respondent was entitled to get his full salary and not merely suspension allowance. The respondent then filed the suit out of which this appeal arises on 17th March 1964. There was no reference made in the plaint, as originally presented, to the order of dismissal. The respondent only challenged, in conformity with the notice under section 80, the order of suspension passed by the Collector and claimed salary for the period of suspension on the footing that the order of suspension was invalid. The plaint was subsequently amended alleging that the order of dismissal was invalid and void and that the plaintiff continued in service. The trial Court held that the order of suspension was valid, as power to suspend was delegated to the Collector by the State Government. It was, however, held that the order of dismissal Was invalid because the Collector had framed the charges and the District Organizer could not dismiss on those charges and the should have referred the matter to the Collector for passing final orders The State had raised plea that no notice was issued under section 80 for challenging the order of dismissal and thereafter the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief that the order of dismissal was invalid. This plea was negatived by the trial Court. The same view was taken in appeal. Thereafter the present second appeal was filed by the State. This plea was negatived by the trial Court. The same view was taken in appeal. Thereafter the present second appeal was filed by the State. Held: The learned Government Advocate has argued before me that as the notice issued under section 80 did not refer to the order of dismissal and did not intimate the State that the dismissal order would be challenged in the suit, the trial Court should not have allowed amendment of the plaint for incorporating allegations regarding invalidity of the order of dismissal. In my opinion, this contention must be accepted. Although a notice has to be interpreted not pedantically but in the light of common sense without being hypercritical about the language. still the question to be considered is whether in the notice there is substantial information conveyed on the basis of which the recipient of the notice could consider the claim of the would be plaintiff and avert the suit: See Amar Nath v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 424 . In the instant case, the entire notice issued by the respondent dealt with the order of suspension and its invalidity. The notice did not refer at all to the order of dismissal passed by the District Organizer on 31st October 1962, there is nothing in the notice to show that the respondent wanted to challenge the order of dismissal and to claim that he continued in service inspite of it in the suit that he proposed to file. Indeed, in the suit as initially filed no challenge was made to the order of dismissal. The trial Court, in my opinion, was not right, in view of the bar contained in section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to permit the respondent to amend the plaint for challenging the order of dismissal and for claiming a declaration that inspite of it he continued in service. The plaintiff-respondent's claim in this suit for challenging the order of dismissal and for a declaration that he continued in service in spite of that order was barred because of non compliance with section 80. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued before me that the respondent did not receive the order of dismissal and it was for this reason that he had not challenged the same in the notice and in the plaint as initially presented. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued before me that the respondent did not receive the order of dismissal and it was for this reason that he had not challenged the same in the notice and in the plaint as initially presented. In my opinion, there is no merit in this argument. Hemraj Gope, the then District Organizer, who is now Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare Department, was examined as P. W. 2. He clearly deposed that on 31st October 1963 when the order of dismissal was passed, the respondent was present in his officer and the order was read out to him. He has further deposed that the respondent refused to accept the order and left the office. Thereafter the order was sent by post, but the respondent again refused to accept it. In view of the statement of Hemraj Gope (D. W. 2), it is clear that the respondent knew about the order from the very beginning as the order was passed in his presence. There is no reason to disbelieve Hemraj Gope on this point. 3. Further, the ground on which the order of dismissal was held to be invalid by the Courts below does not appear to be sound. The fact that it was the Collector who initially framed the charges does not lend any invalidity to the order. The enquiry into the charges was held by the District Organizer who also passed the order of dismissal. It was not held that the District Organizer fact no authority to dismiss the respondent or that he was lower in rank to the appointing authority of the respondent. The order of dismissal was thus not invalid on the ground of which the lower Courts proceeded to hold it to be invalid. It is, however, not necessary to pursue this matter any further as I have held that the respondent's claim for challenging the order of dismissal must fail for non-compliance with section 80. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the order of suspension was bad as it was passed by the Additional Collator and not by the Collector. The argument is that• although the Collector had the power to pass the order of suspension, the Additional Collector had no such power. This argument cannot be accepted, because it is admitted in the plaint that the order of suspension was passed by the Collector. The argument is that• although the Collector had the power to pass the order of suspension, the Additional Collector had no such power. This argument cannot be accepted, because it is admitted in the plaint that the order of suspension was passed by the Collector. The respondent did not raise the point in the plaint that the order of suspension served upon him presumably by the Additional Collector had not the authority of Collector As the point argued was not taken in the pleadings, it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in second appeal. Appeal allowed.