JUDGMENT Narayan Roy, J. I have heard counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-appellant has challenged the decree passed by the court below in money suit no. 88/22 of 1981-84 mainly on the ground that even though there was substantial compliance of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the learned trial court has committed error in holding that there was no substantial compliance of Section 80 of the Code. 3. The plaintiff had brought the money suit aforesaid in the court below for the realisation of Rs. 39,907/- as the price of 243 bags of wheat, weighing 243 quintals at the rate of 125 per quintals including Rs. 9532.00 as interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 20.11.78 to June 1981. The suit was contested by the sole respondent by filing a written statement. 4. It appears that before bringing the suit a notice under Section 80 of the Code was served upon respondent-defendant alongwith its enclosure showing the details of the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The documents were marked as Ext. 3 and 5 respectively by the trial court. The learned court below, however, held that Ext. 3, the office copy under Section 80 of the code does not contain the facts alleged in the plaint. The learned court below further held that the facts claimed by the plaintiff has been mentioned in Ext. 5, which is a list attached with Ext. 3, but there is nothing on record to show that Ext. 5 has link with Ext. 3 and, therefore, there was no substantial compliance of Section 80 of the Code and the suit, therefore, was not maintainable. The learned trial court in the result dismissed the suit. However, the learned trial court has held so far issue no. 4 is concerned that the defendant did not deliver the consignment contained in wagon no. 29495 to the plaintiff. The learned trial court further held that non-delivery of the consignment to the plaintiff was due to negligence of the Railway Administration. Thus issue no. 4 was answered in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Mr. N.N. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned trial court was wrong in saying that Ext. 5 had no link with Ext. 3. Mr. Tiwary further contended that Ext. 5 is the list attached with Ext. Thus issue no. 4 was answered in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Mr. N.N. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned trial court was wrong in saying that Ext. 5 had no link with Ext. 3. Mr. Tiwary further contended that Ext. 5 is the list attached with Ext. 3 containing the details of the claim and, therefore, the learned court below could not have held that there was no substantial compliance of Section 80 of the Code. Mr. Tiwary further contended that Ext. 5, the list was attached with Ext. 3 and the same was filed alongwith Ext. 3 and all the details were disclosed in the list and thus the plaintiff had proved its case about the service of valid notice under Section 80 of the Code upon the defendant-respondents. 6. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the facts/the details of the claim could have been disclosed in Ext. 3 itself and since there is nothing either in the evidence or in the plaint to show that the list was enclosed with Ext. 3, there was no substantial compliance of Section 80 of the Code. Mr. Chatterjee, therefore, contended that the plaintiff thus, failed to prove the valid service of notice upon the defendant-respondent as required under Section 80 of the Code and the court below, therefore, has dismissed the suit as not maintainable in absence of valid service of notice under Section 80 of the Code. 7. I have perused the Ext. 3 and Ext. 5. On perusal of the same it appears that invoice number etc. has been mentioned in Ext. 3 and the facts as incorporated in the plaint has also been set forth in Ext. 3 which is notice under Section 80 of the Code and along with it there is one enclosure marked as Ext. 5 disclosing the actual claim of the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 30,375/-. The learned court below as it appears proceeded on the basis that in absence of the disclosure of the claim in Ext. 3., the plaintiff failed to prove its case of valid service of notice under Section 80 of the Code upon the defendant. 7A. I have also perused the plaint. In the plaint a detailed accounting has been given about the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 3., the plaintiff failed to prove its case of valid service of notice under Section 80 of the Code upon the defendant. 7A. I have also perused the plaint. In the plaint a detailed accounting has been given about the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 30,375/- and has also claimed an interest over the same at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 20.11.1978 to June 1981 amounting to Rs. 9,532/-. If the plaint is read alongwith Ext. 3 and 5, it would appear that the plaintiff had disclosed the details in the notice under Section 80 of the Code. Merely because the interest part has not been added in the list attached with Ext. 3, the learned court below could not have held that there was no valid service of notice under Section 80 of the Code as there was no substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 80 of the Code. In this regard, it would be manifest to notice the amended provisions of Section 80 of the Code. Sub-Section (3) of Section 80 of the Code reads as follows : "No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1) if in such notice- (a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and suet notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and (b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated." 8. From reading of Section 80 as a whole, it appears that the claimant must state the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. From reading of Section 80 as a whole, it appears that the claimant must state the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Code states that no suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1). 9. Non-mentioning of the interest part of the claim in the enclosure of Ext. 3 at best can be said to be an error in the notice and the same thus is curable under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Code. The learned court below, in my opinion, therefore, wholly erred in holding that there was no substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 80 of the Code and thus the suit was not maintainable. 10. The contention of Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that in absence of any evidence to show that Ext. 3 and 5 were filed simultaneously, there cannot be said to be substantial compliance of Section 80 of the Code is not acceptable. 11. I have also perused the written statement filed by the defendant-respondent. Nowhere in the written statement it has been submitted that Ext. 3 and 5 were not filed simultaneously. In absence of such averment, the contentions raised by Mr. Chatterjee are not tenable and it must be held for the reasons aforesaid that Ext. 5 is part and parcel of Ext. 3 and that being the position, there had been substantial compliance of Section 80 of the Code. 12. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, therefore, is wholly erroneous in law and not sustainable. 13. In the result, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree and decree the suit with interest pendente lite till the realisation of the same. However, the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.