Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O. S.6/80 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,000/ from the 1st respondent personally and out of his properties by way of damages. The allegation is that the first respondent maliciously and mischievously instituted proceedings before the Land Board without reasonable and probable cause or excuse and knowing fully well that the facts reported by the 1st respondent are utterly false to his own knowledge. First respondent filed I.A. 705/81 to reject the plaint as it was filed before the expiry of two months from the date of delivery of the notice under S.80 C.P.C. The learned Sub Judge, Palghat held that the suit is not maintainable finding that it was instituted before the expiry of two months from the date of delivery of the notice. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the learned Sub Judge ought not to have dismissed the suit as the petitioners averred in the plaint about the acts of the 1st respondent in his individual capacity as well as in his official capacity. Counsel submitted that as the issues have been raised with regard to the acts of omission and commission of the first respondent both in his individual as well as official capacities the court below ought not to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit has been instituted before the expiry of two months from the date of delivery of the notice. 3. The allegations in the plaint reveals that the first respondent misused his position as a public servant and set the law in motion against the revision petitioners. In para 13 of the plaint it is specifically stated that notice has been issued under S.80 C.P.C. to the respondent, a public servant. In view of the detailed averments in the plaint it is not possible to hold that the suit claim is with regard to the individual acts of the first respondent. 1st respondent was admittedly the Deputy Tahsildar during the relevant time. He was the authorised officer who was empowered to obtain information from persons under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Therefore it cannot be disputed that the first respondent is an officer in the service of the Government having the power to perform public duty. 1st respondent was admittedly the Deputy Tahsildar during the relevant time. He was the authorised officer who was empowered to obtain information from persons under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Therefore it cannot be disputed that the first respondent is an officer in the service of the Government having the power to perform public duty. It goes without saying that the notice under S.80 C.P.C. is really necessary before instituting the suit. 4. The question to be considered is whether a suit can be filed before the expiry of the period mentioned in S.80 C.P.C. where such notice is mandatory. It has also to be considered whether a suit though filed before the expiry of two months but re-presented beyond that period is maintainable. It is specifically stated that the 1st respondent received the notice on 7-11-79. He sent a reply to the same on 29-11-1979. Plaint dated 4-12-1979 is seen filed in court on 6-12-1979. In the plaint itself it is stated that notice was served on the 1st respondent on 1-11-1979. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that notice sent to the 1st respondent was refused to be accepted by him on 1-11-1979 and therefore that date should be deemed to be the date of service. Petitioners have no such case in the plaint. It is seen that the plaint was presented before the court on 6-12-1979. It was re-presented on 1-1-1980. As notice was received by the 1st respondent only on 7-11-1979 the suit could have been filed only on 8-1-1980. It has to be noted that the suit was re-presented on 1-1-1980. This is also before the date of expiry of 2 months provided under S.80 of the C.P.C. 5. S.80 is a bar to the institution of suit before the expiration of the period mentioned therein. It imposes statutory and unqualified obligation upon the court not to deal with a suit filed before the expiry of the period of two months. S.80 notice is a condition precedent for the institution of a suit against a public officer or the State. S.80(2) makes a departure with leave of court in a situation where urgent or immediate relief is called for. S.80 notice is a condition precedent for the institution of a suit against a public officer or the State. S.80(2) makes a departure with leave of court in a situation where urgent or immediate relief is called for. In A.I.R. 1984 S.C.1043 (Bihari Choudhury v. State of Bihar) it is held as follows: "A suit against the Government or a public officer to which the requirement of a prior notice under S.80 C.P.C. is attracted, cannot be validly instituted until the expiration of the period of two months next after the notice in writing has been delivered to the authorities concerned in the manner prescribed for in the Section and if filed before the expiry of the said period, the suit has to be dismissed as not maintainable." The indisputable position is that the suit filed before the expiry of the period mentioned in S.80 C.P.C. is not maintainable. 6. The question next to be considered is whether a suit presented before the expiry period but re-presented after the said period is maintainable or not. S.80 C.P.C. provides that no suit shall be instituted against Govt. or public officer until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office. The above provision makes it unambiguously clear that no suit can be instituted before the expiry of two months. There may be a case where suit was filed before the period of expiry of two months stipulated under S.80 C.P.C. and re-presented on curing defects after the said period. Question is whether such a suit is maintainable. As the suit was filed before the expiry of the two months, the date of re-presentation after the expiry of the aforesaid period is not at all relevant to decide the maintainability of the suit. Merely because the plaint was returned to cure some defect and later re-presented it will have no effect on the plea that by the time the plaint was re-presented within two months period contemplated by S.80 C.P.C. had expired. In this context it is useful to refer to A.I.R. 1976 Madras 20 (Union of India v. M/s. Devanagere Cotton Mills Ltd.) wherein it is held in para 4 as follows: "S. 26, Civil P. C. provides that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. In this context it is useful to refer to A.I.R. 1976 Madras 20 (Union of India v. M/s. Devanagere Cotton Mills Ltd.) wherein it is held in para 4 as follows: "S. 26, Civil P. C. provides that every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. Therefore, a suit is instituted, when the plaint is presented for the first time S.80 also uses the expression "no suit shall be instituted". Therefore, a combined reading of Ss.26 and 80 C.P.C. can lead to the only one conclusion namely, the date on which a plaint is presented for the first time, is the date of institution of the suit. Consequently, the fact that the plaint was returned in this case and was subsequently re-presented will have no effect whatever on the plea of the appellant based on S.80, Civil P. C." 7. In the case in hand the re-presentation of the suit was also before the expiry of the period of 2 months stipulated under S.80 C. P. C. In view of the above position there is no escape from the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable. The learned Sub Judge has rightly held that the suit is not maintainable. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and hence the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.