JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff Ghanshyam against the judgement and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 8-7-1985 allowing the appeal against the judgement and decree of S.D.O. Wah, district Agra dated 28-8-1984 and rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 2. The plaintiff Ghanshyam filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Act No. 1 of 1951 claiming to be co-tenure-holder along with the defendant. 3. The trial court decreed the suit The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and held that the suit was barred under Section 80 C.P.C. inasmuch as fresh notice was not given to the state while filing the subsequent suit even though it had been served before the institution of the previous suit which had been withdrawn. In his opinion a notice was mandatory each time separately before filing each suit. He, therefore, rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 13 C.P.C. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the plaintiff after serving a notice on the State had filed a suit but had withdrawn it and then he had filed fresh suit without giving any fresh notice to the State, hence the appeal has rightly been allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the suit had been withdrawn no fresh notice was necessary and a fresh suit could be instituted on the basis of the notice having already been served on the State before filing the suit which had been withdrawn. It was also argued that since there was no material change in the plaint and that no relief had been claimed against the State or the Gaon Sabha, hence fresh notice was not necessary. 7. I find force in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant. A copy of the notice is on record which had been served on the State before the institution of the previous suit. The contents of this notice clearly tally with the case of the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in this suit. 7. I find force in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant. A copy of the notice is on record which had been served on the State before the institution of the previous suit. The contents of this notice clearly tally with the case of the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in this suit. The State and Gaon Sabha did not contest either the previous suit or the present suit and no relief had been claimed against them by the plaintiff hence the issuance of notice was just a formality because Section 80 C. P. C. essentially requires the service of the notice on the state, if it is a party. That formality was complied with properly by serving the notice on the State before the filing of the previous suit. Consequently no fresh notice was required to have been served on the State before filing the subsequent suit. I am fortified in my view by the ruling reported in 1985 RD page 33 : Smt. Raj Kumari v. Board of Revenue, and AIR 1963 (SC) page 424 Amar Nath Dongra v. Union of India. In para 7 of the aforesaid ruling the Supreme Court gave the following observations. "If the plaint which is being considered by the court has been preceded by a notice which satisfies the requirements of Section 80 Civil Procedure Code, then the fact that before the plaint then under consideration, there had been another plaint which had been filed and withdrawn cannot on any principle, be held to have exhausted or extinguished the vitality of the notice issued". 8. In view of the above legal position the order of the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from serious defect and cannot be maintained. His finding that the suit is bad for want of notice is obviously wrong and the plain could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. C. The appeal, therefore I deserves to be allowed. 9. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. The Judgement of the Additional Commissioner dated 8-7-1985 is set aside and the appeal is remanded back to him to decide it afresh according to law after hearing both the parties.