V. K. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Court of the Assistant District Judge, 24-Parganas at Alipore in Money Suit No. 49 of 1984 (Sri Laxmi Paper Depot v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bongaon And Another) where the appellant's suit for recovery of money has been dismissed only on the ground of non-joinder of parties viz. non-impleadment of the State of West Bengal as a party defendant in that suit. ( 2 ) IN the suit as filed by the appellant, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bongaon and the Collector, 24-Parganas at Alipore, District 24-Parganas were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 The appellant's suit related to the recovery of money in respect of the supplies allegedly made by the appellant to the defendants. The following four issues were framed by the learned Trial Judge :1. Is the suit maintainable?2 Is the suit barred by any provision of law? ( 3 ) IS the Plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for?4 To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled?5 The suit was dismissed only after considering the issue No. 1 mainly because it was held that since the State of West Bengal was not made a party defendant, the suit was not maintainable. ( 4 ) TODAY, despite the case having been called twice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and perused the records. ( 5 ) WE find that despite a prayer having been made by the appellant before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court did not consider it necessary to allow the sole appellant to add the State of West Bengal as a party defendant, possibly thinking that since a valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been served upon the State of West Bengal, and the service of such statutory notice being a sine qua non to the filing of the suit, the impleadment could not be allowed at that stage; hence the dismissal of the suit. It may also be noticed that in this appeal before us, the appellant has presented an application seeking amendment of the plaint so as to add the State of West Bengal as a party defendant. It may also be noticed that in this appeal before us, the appellant has presented an application seeking amendment of the plaint so as to add the State of West Bengal as a party defendant. ( 6 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, an obligation had been cast upon the appellant/plaintiff, while instituting the suit, to impleade the State of West Bengal as a party defendant and to serve a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon it before filing the suit. It is a mandatory requirement. Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with O. 27, R. 5 (a) clearly enjoins upon the intending plaintiff to meet with this requirements and to implead the State of West Bengal as a party defendant in a suit of this nature. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure also makes it mandatory that before the suit is filed, two months' statutory notice is served upon the State. However, before the suit is actually dismissed on this ground, the plaintiff prays to the Court that it be directed to rectify the defects and implead the State of West Bengal, in our view, this prima facie ought to have been considered in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when we find that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had actually been served upon the Collector, 24-Parganas which substantially met with therequirement of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In our view, the learned Court below ought not have rejected the prayer of the appellant for impleadment of State of West Bengal as an added defendant in the suit. Non-suiting the plaintiff in a case relating to the claim of money for alleged supply of some items on the ground of omission to implead the State as a Defendant perhaps was too harsh upon the plaintiff. An opportunity ought to have been given to the plaintiff, specifically when it had actually prayed for such impleadment. ( 7 ) UPON over-all consideration, therefore, we are of the view that in this case, the appellant deserves a relief of being permitted to implead the State of West Bengal as a party defendant. Because of such relief, therefore, the suit has to be remanded for being tried afresh since we are upsetting the finding of the Court below on issue No. 1. Because of such relief, therefore, the suit has to be remanded for being tried afresh since we are upsetting the finding of the Court below on issue No. 1. ( 8 ) IN the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree impugned are set aside. In view of our finding on issue No. 1, in modification of the finding returned by the Court below on issue No. 1, we observe and direct that if the appellant files an amended plaint, in the light of the observations made above, within 2 months from today before the Court below, the proceedings in the suit shall start all over again and the Trial Court shall issue summons to the defendants in the suit and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. ( 9 ) ANYTHING stated herein shall not be construed as any expression of opinion by us about the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit. We have confined ourselves in this judgment to the limited question, rather the only question about the maintainability of the suit with respect to the non-impleadment of the State of West Bengal as a defendant. ( 10 ) THE appeal is allowed. No order is made as to costs. The records be sent back to the Court below. Nor formal decree need be passed. ( 11 ) D. P. KUNDU, J. : -. I agree. Appeal allowed.