Judgment 1. THIS revisional application has come before this bench as a learned judge of this Court, while hearing this matter sitting singly, was inclined to hold that the earlier case of this Court in Shima sundari vs. Paltu Hembram (AIR 1982 Calcutta 5), disposed of by a learned single JUDGE was not correctly decided. 2. SECTION 53a of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 inserted in 1972, now mandates that "the Revenue Officer having jurisdiction in the area in which the land is situated shall be a necessary party to all suits of civil nature relating to any such land or portion thereof in which one of the parties to the suit is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and the other party is not a member of any Scheduled Tribe". The Section is not so couched as to provide that the plaintiff shall make the Revenue Officer a party to the suit or that no suit shall be filed or entertained without such joinder. The obligation to make the Revenue Officer a party in such a case is no less on the Court itself. The section is a special provision within the meaning of Article 15 (4) of the constitution of India and stems out of the anxiety of the State to protect and safeguard the interest of the Scheduled Tribe as enjoined in different provisions of our Constitution. Since; as a result of the provisions of this section 53a, no suit referred to in that Section can proceed without the revenue Officer as a party, he is obviously a necessary party and to that extent, if we may say so with respect, this point in Shima Sundari (supra) was correctly decided, But we do not see as to how it can be ruled, as ruled in Shima Sundari (supra), that in such a case, the service of a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the Revenue Officer is a condition precedent for the maintainability of such a suit, where one has to make the Revenue Officer a necessary party to a suit, not out of any inherent requirements of the matters in dispute, but because of a mandate tin a later Statute. 3. 3. THERE should be no doubt that where, as here, no cause of action arises against the Revenue Officer and no relief is also claimed against such Officer, the question of service of notice on such officer can hardly arise. Abare perusal of the relevant provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure will demonstrate this position with irresistible clarity; yet reference, if need be, may be made to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mani Luxmi Patel vs. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance (AIR 1962 Calcutta 625 at 629% We have no doubt that the unqualified observation in Shtma Sundari (supra) to the effect that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the revenue Officer in a suit referred to in Section 52a is necessary was too broadly stated and cannot be regarded to be good law. 4. IT may be noted in this context that the apparent rigour of the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, highlighted with blaze by the Privy council in Bhagcnand vs. Secretary of State (AIR 1927 Privy Council 176), has been modified and modified to a great extent by the Privy Council itself in a much later decision in Vellyan Chettiar vs. Province of Madras (AIR 1947 Privy council 197) holding that service of a notice thereunder can also be waived by the party. And the rigour has now further abated as a result of the amendment of the said Section made in 1976 providing, inter alia, that in a suitable case, a salt may be entertained even without such notice and that any and every error, omission or defect in such notice shall not affect the maintainability of any suit filed thereon. We accordingly hold that service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the Revenue Officer in a case like this is not necessary. But even assuming arguendo that it was so necessary, and, as the learned munsif thought, that it would have brought in unnecessary complications at such a late stage, the learned Munsif could have, on his own, ordered joinder of the Revenue Officer under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to outweigh all questions relating to requirement of notice, even if such questions could at all arise. As already stated, protection of the interest of the Scheduled Tribes, is the Constitutional obligation of the State, which, as held by the Supreme Court in Kesovananda Bharati (AIR 1973 supreme Court 1461 at 1950), Includes ITS Judicial ORGAN also. In a case like this, therefore, the court should suo moto, order joinder of the revenue Officer, whether or not the parties take any step to that effect. 5. WE accordingly allow the revision set, aside the impugned order of the learned munsif, and direct him to effect joinder of the revenue officer forthwith in this suit and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Record to go down at once. No cost. Revision Allowed.