JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a revision against judgment and decree dated September 26, 1975 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in appeal No. 34 of 1973-74, Etah maintaining the order dated November 9, 1973 passed by Additional S.D.O. district Etah dismissing the suit filed by the applicant under old Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951 on the ground that no cause of action was given for filing the suit under Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951 and was given for filing the suit under Section 229-B and thereby dismissing the suit. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that cause of action is not required to be given in the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and that by mentioning wrong section in the notice for filing the suit does not make the notice defective. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1960 Calcutta 673 and 1967 R.D. 164. 4. It has been argued in reply that the defect in the notice was regarding nature of the suit proposed to be filed and the courts below rightly held the notice to be defective mentioning suit to be filed under Section 226-B of Act I of 1951 while the actual suit was filed under Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951. 5. Section 80 C.P.C. requires statement of the cause of action description of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims and averment in the plaint that such notice has been so delivered or left. 6. The amended Section 80 C.P.C. has made relations so that a person may not be deprived of an opportunity of just claims on technical grounds and the suit is not to be dismissed merely by reason of any technical defect or error in the notice or any irregularity in the service of notice. If the cause of action of the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated in the notice. 7. In A.I.R. 1960 Calcutta page 673 - State of West Bengal v. Jiwanmall Babu and another relying on A.I.R 1958 (S.C.) page 274. It has been held as follows:- "Though the terms of Sections 80 are to be strictly complied with, the terms of the notice should not be scrutinised in a pedantic manner, or in a manner completely divorced from common sense. It has been held as follows:- "Though the terms of Sections 80 are to be strictly complied with, the terms of the notice should not be scrutinised in a pedantic manner, or in a manner completely divorced from common sense. A little common sense must be imported in the notice under Section 80 - A notice under Section 80 does not require that the date of the accrual of the cause of action should be given. Where the cause of action stated in the notice under Section 80, is the same as in the plaint, the notice cannot be held to be invalid on the ground of disparity between the date of cause of action stated in the notice and one stated in the plaint, when though the date of the cause of action in the plaint is stated to be one after the date of the issue of notice it has in fact arisen before that date." 8. In the Junior High School v. The Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahabad and others 1967 R.D. 164 (H.C.). It has been held as follows:- "The Supreme Court emphasised that the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code should not be interpreted in a pedantic manner. Hence the non-giving of the date of possession of the defendants which had not been known to the plaintiff cannot be said to be a fatal defect for the defendants who were sued clearly knew the cause of action upon which they were being used." 9. In the present notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was given mentioning the cause of action to be the cancellation of Patta by S.D.O. under Section 198(2) and that suit was to be filed for declaration of his rights to be Sirdar in possession of the disputed land although Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 was mentioned wrongly in the notice instead of old Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951. The omission of mentioning the correct section does not make the notice totally illegal because the cause of action and relief for declaration of Sirdari rights were specifically mentioned in the notice and that constituted sufficient compliance of Section 80 of the C.P.C., therefore, in view of the above rulings and in view of the trend that notice under Section 80 C.P.C. should not be construed and scrutinized in a pedantic manner, or in a manner completely divorced from common sense. After importing a little common sense to the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. In the present case it will appear to be substantial compliance of Section 80 of the C.P.C., therefore, both the courts below acted illegally in throwing the suit of the plaintiff on technical ground that old Section 198(4) of Act I of 1951 was not mentioned and as Section 229-B of that Act was mentioned the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was defective. 10. In the present case as substantially indicated the cause of action to be cancellation of the Patta and the relief to be sought to be declaration of his Sirdari rights, therefore, wrong mentioning of Section 229-B instead of old Section 198(4) does not make the notice defective in any way. This appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside and the case needs to be remanded to the trial court for decision on merits. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trail court for deciding the case on merits after affording the parties to adduce their evidence.