JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, M. - This review application has been filed against the Board's judgment and decree dated March 2, 1982 in second appeal No. 11 of 1975/76/Gorakhpur which was dismissed as without force. 2. The main ground pleaded by the learned counsel for the applicant is that no notice under Section 20 C.P.C. was served and so the suit was not maintainable, that this objection goes to the very jurisdiction of the court and can be raised by any defendant at any stage and its non-consideration is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel has cited rulings in support which are reported in 1976 R.D. 244(B.R.), 1964 A.L.J. 239 (H.C.) and 1980 A.W.C. 456 (H.C.). 3. It is interesting to note the facts of the case. In the plaint filed on November 8, 1971, in para 8, it was stated that the State Government is not required to be served with notice under Section 80 C.P.C. in view of the ruling reported in Rajjab v. Shamsher Khan 1968 R.D. 368. In the written statement, the defendant-applicant merely said that para 8 of the plaint as framed was not admitted. The State was made a party but did not contest. It is clear that no defendant contested the principle enunciated in the city ruling and then prevailing. In view of the acceptance of the ruling, the need of the notice had obviously been waived by the defendants. Therefore, no issue on this point was needed and framed. In the first appeal none of the eleven grounds in the memorandum of appeal concerns this point. It was not argued and not considered. In the second appeal too, none of the seven grounds relates to this point of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. It was only at the argument stage that it was argued and considered in paras 6 and 7 and the considered was that the notice being for the benefit of the State, if State waived the requirement, it was not open to others to raise it. 4. Since the first two rulings had already been discussed in the judgment in question, and the conclusion was derived after due consideration of the legal position clarified by the case law, there is no scope for the existence of any error apparent on the face of the record. 4. Since the first two rulings had already been discussed in the judgment in question, and the conclusion was derived after due consideration of the legal position clarified by the case law, there is no scope for the existence of any error apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case, the history revealed above also confirms that not only the State but the applicant also had reconciled to the law laid down in 1969 R.D. 368 and all the defendants including the applicant had although waived any such objection. Therefore, the waiver applied here all the more. 5. The latest ruling in 1980 A.W.C. 456 is better reproduced below: "The notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was not only issued by it was served also. The only defect was of absence of details. But this could have been raised by parties to whom the notice was sent and not by third party. If no notice is sent or served the suit is not maintainable. The objection to maintainability of suit goes to jurisdiction and can be raised by the State or any other defendant. But where notice has been sent and served the defect in the form or details could be raised by the State only. It could take up the plea that the plaintiff could not be identified or that subject matter of suit being not clear or cause of action being not clearly stated it could not make out its defence. But this could be done at earliest opportunity to enable the plaintiff to remove the defects. It could not be taken in second appeal to the prejudice of plaintiff. What could not be done by party itself could not be done by third party. The defect of details does not go to jurisdiction." Two aspects are important. No doubt, a third party could raise objection according to the latest view, but it is also laid that objection of any type has to be taken at the earliest opportunity to enable the plaintiff to rectify the defect and not in the second appeal secondly, the objection cannot be taken in arguments after neglecting to take the objection in trail first appeal and second appeal (memo). It was open to the party at least to challenge the principle laid down in the ruling of 1969 at the three above stages which was not done. It was open to the party at least to challenge the principle laid down in the ruling of 1969 at the three above stages which was not done. The ruling of 1980 (Hasnsraj v. Board of Revenue) was not cited or it could be taken into consideration. Thus on both the aspects, it cannot be said that an error apparent is made out. 6. When a party itself waives the objection to the maintainability of a suit, it cannot take the objection in the second appeal on the strength of the latest case law, while having reconciled to the case law prevailing earlier at the trial and first appellate stage. Needless to say, such latest case law revealed at the review application stage, cannot be deemed to create an error apparent in the judgment in the second appeal. 7. This review application, in the circumstances is found to be without force and is rejected.