Judgment P. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 3-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. against the order dated 24-3-1994 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tibi passed in Civil Original Suit No. 5/93 whereby issue No. 4 was decided against the defendant-petitioner. ( 2 ) NON-PETITIONERS 1 and 2-plaintiffs filed a suit against non-petitioners 3 and 4 and the petitioner seeking declaration that the order passed by non-petitioner No. 4 dated 20-4-1974 is null and void and ineffective and that the plaintiff be delivered possession of the land described in para 12 of the plaint from defendant-petitioner. The plaintiff has alleged in the suit that his father Baluram possessed agricultural land described in para 1 of the plaint. He surrendered the above land in exchange of the land to be allotted by defendant No. 2, District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. Proceedings in respect of the above were initiated and the file was submitted to respondent No. 2 for passing appropriate order. The Collector accorded his sanction by order dated 20-11-1968 and the file was remitted to the S. D. O. , Hanumangarh for compliance. The plaintiff has stated that in pursuance of the order of the Collector, relevant entries were made in revenue record. Thereafter the father of the plaintiff surrendered land in exchange of the other land that was allotted by the Collector on 20-11-1968. The plaintiff has also stated that after the allotment of the new land, the same was partitioned between the plaintiff and his two brothers as stated in Para 5 of the plaint. However, defendant No. 2, in flagrant violation of law, revoked his previous order dated 20-11-1968 by which the new land was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff agitated the matter before various Authorities and restrained the Collector from delivering possession of the same to defendant No. 3. However, the plaintiff did not succeed in his efforts to get the order of the Collector cancelled. The land was, therefore, delivered to defendant No. 3 who is the petitioner in this petition. The plaintiff has, therefore, sought the relief as stated above. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the plaintiff/his father made a misrepresentation that the land surrendered by him was free from encumbrance. The land was, therefore, delivered to defendant No. 3 who is the petitioner in this petition. The plaintiff has, therefore, sought the relief as stated above. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the plaintiff/his father made a misrepresentation that the land surrendered by him was free from encumbrance. In fact the above land was entangled in the mischief of ceiling limit. The plaintiff, in order to defeat the ceiling provisions, sought to surrender the above land in exchange of the other land which could be allotted by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. When the true facts came to the knowledge of defendant No. 2, he cancelled the above allotment which was in accordance with law because the plaintiff cannot be allowed to defeat the provisions of law by making a misrepresentation in respect of his land. The maintainability of the suit was also challenged on the ground that no notice under Section 80 C. P. C. was served on defendant No. 3/ petitioner. By the impugned order, the trial court has decided issue No. 4 against the petitioner/defendant No. 3. The learned trial court held that the petitioner is a "public Officer" as defined in Section 2 (17), C. P. C. The petitioner has not taken possession of the land in question in official capacity. Hence issue No. 4 decided against the defendant No. 3/petitioner. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a "public Officer" as defined in Section 2 (17), C. P. C. Once it is held that the petitioner is a "public Officer", a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was mandatory before the plaintiff could have filed the present suit. The provisions contained in Section 80, C. P. C. are mandatory in nature. Its terms are imperative and admit of no exception or implication. A suit not complying with its provisions, cannot be entertained by any Court, and if instituted, must be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner-defendant No. 3 obtained possession of the above land in the capacity of District Education Officer. The act of taking possession was performed by the petitioner in the capacity of District Education Officer. The act of taking possession was performed by the petitioner in the capacity of District Education Officer. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 80, C. P. C. ought to have been invoked. Since no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was issued in respect of defendant No. 3, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-petitioners supported the order of the learned trial Court on the ground that the possession of the land in question was not delivered to the petitioner in the capacity of his being a District Education Officer. Hence the petitioner has not performed any official act as regards the taking of possession of the disputed land. Hence no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was necessary. ( 6 ) I have considered the rival arguments. A perusal of the definition as given in S. 2 (17), C. P. C. shows that the petitioner is a "public Officer" inasmuch as any person in the service or pay of the Government are remunerated by fees or commission for the purposeof any public duty is a "public Officer". Hence in my opinion, the petitioner was a "public Officer" at the relevant time. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the second question that falls for determination whether the possession of the above land was delivered to the petitioner-defendant No. 3 in his official capacity. It may be stated that the possession of the above land was given to the petitioner-defendant No. 3 not in his individual capacity. If the above land would have been allotted to him in his individual capacity, the same would have been made clear in the allotment order. The land was entrusted or allotted to the petitioner in his capacity as District Education Officer for public utility. Hence notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was necessary to be served in respect of the act of defendant No. 3 before the plaintiffs could have filed the above suit. The land was entrusted or allotted to the petitioner in his capacity as District Education Officer for public utility. Hence notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was necessary to be served in respect of the act of defendant No. 3 before the plaintiffs could have filed the above suit. ( 8 ) SINCE the plaintiffs filed the above suit without complying with the provisions of S. 80 C. P. C. , which are imperative and mandatory, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. ( 9 ) FOR the above reasons, I accept the revision petition and reject the suit filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. No order as to costs. Revision allowed.