JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - This revision at the instance of defendant No. 1 is against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak, passed in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1984 allowing the plaintiff's prayer for addition of State of Orissa as defendant to the suit. 2. To appreciate the question posed in the present revision it is necessary to recapitulate the factual aspect as stated hereunder: Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 189 of 1979 in representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC for a declaration of customary right of the villagers over the suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the exercise of their such right and for a declaration that the sale deed in respect of the suit land which stands in the names of the defendants is illegal and inoperative. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 countered the plaintiff's claim of customary right and asserted that the suit land originally belonged to the ex-landlords Quutubuddin Hossain and others who leased out the same in favour of one Abdul Hai and put him in possession thereof. Subsequently the successors of the aforesaid lessee sold away the suit land by registered sale deed dated 24-7-1979 to the defendants and since purchase they have been possessing the same as owners thereof by making certain improvements. 4. The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the evidence led during trial, dismissed the suit. Feeling angrieved by the judgment and decree the unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred the aforesaid Title Appeal. During pendency of the appeal, they filed a petition under Order 6, Rule, 17, CPC praying for impletion of State of Orissa as a party defendant. This prayer was objected to by the defendants. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, learned Additional District Judge allowed the plaintiff's prayer and remanded the suit to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Defendant No. 1 preferred Misc. Appeal No. 251 of 1989 against the said order to this Court which upon hearing the parties, held the same to be unsustainable for the following reasons and remanded the matter for fresh disposal: "(i) Without hearing the appeal on merit, the appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. Appeal No. 251 of 1989 against the said order to this Court which upon hearing the parties, held the same to be unsustainable for the following reasons and remanded the matter for fresh disposal: "(i) Without hearing the appeal on merit, the appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. (ii) It has nowhere given the finding that the plaintiffs had compiled with the requirement of Section 80, CPC. (iii) It has given no finding regarding the title of the defendants though the trial Court had given specific finding that the defendants have title to the property. In case the learned appellate Court would have come to the conclusion that the defendants have title to the property, then there would have been no need for further adjudication as to whether the plaintiffs have customary right under the State of Orissa." Consequent upon remand, learned Additional District Judge heard both parties afresh and accepted plaintiff's contentions and consequently allowed the State of Orissa to be impleaded as a party defendant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 1 strenuously, contended that learned Additional District Judge being aware of the "observations of the Court as extracted above, failed to follow the same while passing the impugned order. It was further urged that there had been no compliance of the statutory requirement of notice as envisaged u/s 80, CPC and this question although was raised in course of argument, but the appellate Court without verifying the correctness thereof, passed a cryptic order holding that there was proper service of notice upon the State. Lastly he submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, State of Orissa is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, inasmuch as in absence of State of Orissa, an effective decree can be passed, but in order to nullify the effect of the decree, such a prayer was made so that if the same was allowed, the appellate Court would have no other alternative than to remand the case for re-trial. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, supporting the impugned order contended that since the suit land is Government land, State of Orissa is a necessary party in whose absence no effective decree can be passed and therefore, learned appellate Court has rightly allowed the prayer for impleading the State of Orissa as a defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, supporting the impugned order contended that since the suit land is Government land, State of Orissa is a necessary party in whose absence no effective decree can be passed and therefore, learned appellate Court has rightly allowed the prayer for impleading the State of Orissa as a defendant. 6. In view of the submissions made at the Bar, the first and foremost question for consideration is whether mandatory requirement of service of notice as envisaged u/s 80, CPC has been complied with or not. As the statute mandates, prior to filing of the suit against Central Government or State Government, or a public officer, a notice shall be delivered to the Secretary of the concerned Government or the Collector of the district or the public officer stating the cause of action, name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief claimed and after expiry of two months next after service of notice the suit could be instituted. In the present case, the impugned order does not show whether notice giving the details of the information as aforesaid was at all served and whether two months had expired by the time the petition was filed. Since question of validity of notice has been raised in this revision and the same being a mixed question of law and fact, I have verified the appellate Court's record to ascertain whether statutory requirement of service of notice has been complied with or not. Undisputedly no notice was at all served when the petition for amendment was filed. While allowing the plaintiff's prayer at the first instance, learned Additional District Judge did not apply his mind to this legal aspect of the case. Only when the case was remanded, plaintiffs served a notice through their Advocate, attaching a copy of the plaints by registered post on 13-5-1995. This factual position has been admitted by the plaintiffs in their petition dated 20-7-1995 filed before the appellate Court where they have clearly stated that by the time of filing of the petition for amendment, notice u/s 80, CPC had not been served. Service of notice u/s 80, CPC is not an empty formality. This factual position has been admitted by the plaintiffs in their petition dated 20-7-1995 filed before the appellate Court where they have clearly stated that by the time of filing of the petition for amendment, notice u/s 80, CPC had not been served. Service of notice u/s 80, CPC is not an empty formality. The object of such notice is to give the concerned Government or public officer an opportunity to reconsider the legal position and settle the claim, if so advised, without landing into any legal battle. The legislative intention behind such provision is that public money and time should not be wasted on unnecessary litigation and the Government or the public officer should be given reasonable opportunity to examine the claim made against them. The provision being imperative, failure to serve notice complying with the requirement will entail dismissal of the suit. Had the appellate Court kept itself alive to this legal position and verified the record, the ultimate conclusion would have gone against the plaintiffs, since there was no service of notice at all before filing of the petition. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that on this ground alone the revision has to succeed. 7. Turning to next question as to whether State of Orissa is a necessary party for determining the real question in dispute, it may be reiterated that defendants 1 and 2 asserted title over the suit land by virtue of their purchase from the successors of one Abdul Hai who got the same by way of tease from the ex-landlord. The trial Court on evaluation of the evidence white rejecting the plaintiffs' claim for customary right found title of the suit land with defendants 1 and 2. It being the admitted case of the parties that the suit land stands recorded as raiyati land in the names of defendants 1 and 2 in the settlement record-of-rignts, plaintiffs could not satisfy as to how presence of State of Orissa as a party to the suit is necessary when the main relief is for declaration of customary right of the villagers. To my mind the attempt of the plaintiffs to add the State as a party defendant is with the object to nullify the effect of the decree by getting the suit remanded for trial afresh. 8. To my mind the attempt of the plaintiffs to add the State as a party defendant is with the object to nullify the effect of the decree by getting the suit remanded for trial afresh. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Final Result : Allowed