JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the order of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. by the first appellate court after hearing of the first appeal by the defendant before him. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The suit in the trial court was under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the plaint did not contain any averment that the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. had served on the defendants 2 and 3 being the Gaon Sabha and State respectively and the defendants in their written statement had taken the plea that for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. suit was not maintainable. However, no issue on the point was made and the learned trial court decreed the suit on merit. The learned Additional Commissioner found this defect material and rejected the plaint. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the defendant had no right to raise this objection which only the State or the Gaon Sabha could raise, in support he cited rulings reported in 1974 R.D. (Suppl.) 238 and A.I.R. 1969 Alld. 161. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the plaint was rejected for not containing any cause of action and want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C., that the cause of action was there and the plaint if defective should have been returned. 5. The judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner makes it clear that the plaint was rejected for the defect mentioned in para 4 of his judgment that the suit was there was barred under Section 80 C.P.C. Since there was no averment even in the plaint about notice having been served as required under Section 80(1) C.P.C. it was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. For return of plaint, the provision is under Rule 10 but it concern only a situation when the plaint is filed in a court not having jurisdiction. Here the court had jurisdiction but did not have the jurisdiction to try the case unless the requirement of Section 80 C.P.C. had been complied with. This is fully supported by the ruling reported in 1978 A.W.C. (Rev.) 37. Here the court had jurisdiction but did not have the jurisdiction to try the case unless the requirement of Section 80 C.P.C. had been complied with. This is fully supported by the ruling reported in 1978 A.W.C. (Rev.) 37. The rulings cited by the appellant would have been applicable if the averment about the service of notice was contained in the plaint but actual service of notice was being contested by the other defendants and not the State, but in his case those rulings do not apply. 6. In the circumstances, I find no force in this second appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs.