Judgment CHY S. N. Mishra, J. 1. Defendant No.1, Dr. Ram Ashraya Yadav, in the criminal suit is the petitioner in this civil revision application, which arises out of an order, dated 8-5-96 passed in Title Suit No.432 of 1995, by Sri Hem Shankar Singh, 1st Subordinate Judge, Patna, whereby he was rejected the petition filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinin-after called the Code) for deciding the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit. 2. The plaintiff, who is the Accountant-General of Bihar, Audit (1), filed Title Suit No.432 of 1995 for a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs besides interest, pendente lite and future, as determined by the Court, from the defendants including the petitioner, jointly or severally, for the defamatory statements made by them, which was published in the daily newspapers. During the pendency of he suit, a petition purported to be under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code was filed jointly on behalf of defendants Nos.1 and 2 praying therein to decide the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit against defendants Nos.1 and 2. The aforesaid petition was field, firstly, on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed, as no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint, and, secondly, the petitioner being a public servant, a notice under Section 80 of the Code ought to have been issued and/or served upon the petitioner, which was not done in this case. A rejoinder to the said petition was not also filed by the plaintiff-opposite party no.1. 3. The Court, on a consideration of the averments made in the pleadings came to the conclusion that the cause of action had been fully disclosed on different dates mentioned in the impugned order itself. As regards non-service of notice under Sec.80 of the Code on the defendants, it was submitted that it is not open for the defendants to abuse, defame and use unparliamentary language to damage the reputation and prestige of the plaintiff opposite party no.1, who is Class I Officer in the audit and Accounts Service and, as such, service of notice under Sec.80 of the Code is not required, as the act has not been done by the defendant No.1 in discharge of his official duties. It was further stated that the defendants have not disclosed as yet in their written statement that the defamatory imputations made by them through daily newspapers are in the discharge of their official duties. Accordingly the Court has accepted the contentions of the plaintiff and rejected the petition filed by the defendants, as stated above. 4. Mr. S. C. Ghose, Learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in support of his contention, has submitted that the petitioner, being the Chairman of the Bihar Public service Commission, holds a very high public office and no suit can be filed without service of notice under Section 80 of the Code. According to Mr. Ghose, even if the impugned imputation is made malafide, still notice, as envisaged under Sec.80 of the Code is essentially required before filing of the suit. It is further submitted that for deciding preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit, the written statement is not required to be filed by the defendant-petitioner. Mr. Ghose has confined his argument only to the question of non-maintainability of the suit in absence of notice under Section 80 of the Code. Learned Counsel has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention: (1) State of Maharahstra and another V/s. Shri Chander Kant, AIR 1977 supreme Court 148, (2) Bihari Chowdhary and another v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1984 supreme Court 1043, (3) Jageshwar Thakur V/s. Mahab-harath Thakur, AIR 1950 Pat.32; and (4) Bakshi Ghulam Mohd. V/s. G. M. Sadiq and others, AIR 1968 J. and K.98. In opposition, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff opposite party, however, states that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petition filed by the defendants is premature in absence of the written-statement, inasmuch as, the defendants are not authorised under the colourable exercise of official jurisdiction to abuse and insult and use unparliamentary language to damage the reputation of a class I Officer in course of argument, the Learned Counsel has referred to the entire plaint in support of his contention. Now, let me consider the decisions, aforesaid, cited by Mr. Ghose. In the case of State of Maharashtra and another v. Shri Chander Kant (supra), which arose out of the final judgment and decree in a suit filed for declaration that gajanan Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul-Dastagir was not a public trust. Now, let me consider the decisions, aforesaid, cited by Mr. Ghose. In the case of State of Maharashtra and another v. Shri Chander Kant (supra), which arose out of the final judgment and decree in a suit filed for declaration that gajanan Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul-Dastagir was not a public trust. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is that the notice, as required under Sec.80 of the Code is a must, provided the order is purported to have been passed in the official capacity. It was held, on evidence that the order was passed in discharge of his official duty and, as such, the notice under Sec.80 of the code is a pre-requisite for filing a suit. The decision reported in Bihari chowdhary and another (supra) is not relevant for decision of this case, as the ratio of the aforesaid decision is that the suit filed before the expiry of the statutory period or two months, as required under Sec.80 of the Code was not maintainable. In that case, notice was admittedly issued but before the expiry of the statutory period, the suit was filed. Accordingly it was held that the suit is not maintainable. The decision reported in Jageshar Thakur V/s. Mahabharath Thakur (supra) does not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case, wherein, on evidence adduced before the court, it was held that no offence had been committed by the public servant. The last decision, which has been relied upon by Mr. Ghose, reported in Bakshi Ghulam Mohd. V/s. G. M. Sadiq and others (supra) also will not help him. It was held while disposing of the original suit, on the admitted position, the allegations made, were in discharge of the official function being a public servant. From a reading of the judgment as a whole, it appears that it was admitted that the imputation was made in exercise of the official function, which is not the case here. Accordingly, i am of the view that the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner are not, in any way, applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Moreover, one thing is apparent that the instant suit has been filed in the individual capacity and not against the Chairman of the Public service Commission,. Further, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. 5. Moreover, one thing is apparent that the instant suit has been filed in the individual capacity and not against the Chairman of the Public service Commission,. Further, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. 5. In the result, this civil revision application is dismissed, but without costs. However, it is made clear that the trial court will frame the relevant issues including the issue of service of notice under Sec.80 of the Code and decide the question of law on the evidence on record, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. Revision Dismissed.