JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---Regular Civil Suit No. ..... of 1989 was presented on 23-10-1989 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chalisgaon for orders on a application to grant leave under section 80, sub-section (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to institute the suit without serving any notice as required under sub-section (1) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the plaintiff desired to get urgent and immediate relief against the Government or a Public Officer. While considering the said application, the Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon, on 23-10-1989, refused to grant leave to institute the suit and dismissed the application and thereby the plaint was returned by the said Court for complying with the statutory provisions of law before instituting such a suit. The said order was challenged by further filing appeal, which bears Rejected Appeal No. 7 of 1989. The said appeal is rejected by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon on 6-11-1989 and the Additional District Judge found that there is no provision which permits the filing of the appeal for granting leave and/or refusing leave to institute the suit without compliance of section 80, sub-section (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was rejected, however, with the liberty to approach to the proper forum for redressal of grievance. Thereafter the present revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the present petitioner challenging the orders referred above. 2. So far as order passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon on 6-11-1989 is concerned, it is conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a remedy of appeal against the orders of the rejection of a plaint wherein leave to institute the suit without compliance of sub-section (1) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is refused under sub-section (2) of section 80 of the Code and, therefore, the said order is found to be valid one. 3. However, the learned Counsel requested to consider the legality of the order passed on 23-10-1989 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon refusing to grant leave to institute the suit without compliance of sub-section (1) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. 3. However, the learned Counsel requested to consider the legality of the order passed on 23-10-1989 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon refusing to grant leave to institute the suit without compliance of sub-section (1) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The suit has been filed wherein the declaration has been asked for that the respondent/State have no right to obtain the possession of the suit land from the plaintiff/petitioner and that the respondent/State and its Officers may be restrained from causing any obstructions to the plaintiff/petitioner's possession in the suit land. The petitioner has challenged the act of acquisition completed by the State Government in respect of the suit land. It is not disclosed as to when the award has been passed, but it is only disclosed that the notice has been issued by the State on 19-10-1989 to deliver the possession of the suit land on 23-10-1989 and the said notice was served on 20-10-1989 on the plaintiff and thus, the urgency has been claimed in the suit. The application presented to the courts for grant of leave to institute the suit only states that the suit is urgent and that illegally possession is being taken away from the plaintiff and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of section 80, sub-section (2) of the Code, notice be dispensed with and the suit be registered. 5. It is evident from the pleadings in the suit that the notices in respect of the acquisition were given in the year 1983-84 and that the plaintiff and others have filed their objections. Thus, it becomes clear from the pleadings in the plaint that the plaintiff is aware since 1983-84 of the acquisition proceedings and that he has filed objections to the said acquisition. Under these circumstances, if the plaintiff is desirous of challenging the acquisition, he should have taken steps to challenge the said acquisition immediately after the publication of section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act. That he has failed to do. He waited till the notice of possession under section 16 is issued and the notice under section 16 is always issued after the award under section 11 has been passed, except in cases of emergency clause. That he has failed to do. He waited till the notice of possession under section 16 is issued and the notice under section 16 is always issued after the award under section 11 has been passed, except in cases of emergency clause. Therefore, as to why since 1983-84 the plaintiff was not in a position to make a compliance of sub-section (1) of section 80 of the C.P.C. was not disclosed by the plaintiff either in the plaint or in application seeking leave to institute the suit without compliance of sub-section (1) of section 80 of the C.P.C. Section 80, sub-section (2) of the C.P.C., no doubt, gives a power to the Civil Court to grant a leave to institute a suit when plaintiff is desirous of getting urgent relief against the defendant, who may be the State or the Officers of the State. Initially, that permission will be granted ex parte. However, the State will be entitled to contest the said grant of permission after appearing in the matter. Section 80, sub-section (2) of the C.P.C. says that even though the leave to institute the suit may be granted , the notice in respect of the interim relief will have to be issued which is in spirit with the Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Presently we are not at that stage of the matter. The question which arises is that whether the present application contained the sufficient material facts to grant a leave to institute the suit and on plain reading of the application, it will be evident that the application does not contain the material facts to grant leave to institute the suit without compliance of section 80, sub-section (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. What is pertinent to be looked into is that the cause of action which is required to be stated in such a suit must have arisen at such point of time that even the diligent plaintiff desires to comply with the provisions of section 80, sub-section (1) of the C.P.C., it is impossible for him to comply with the said provisions. Simpliciter notice of possession is issued in acquisition proceedings cannot be said to be a ground of urgency, because in acquisition proceedings prior to the issuance of such notice, several notices i.e. the notices under sections 4, 6 and 9 are issued to the concerned parties and thereafter the award is passed under section 11 and after completion of an award, the State proceeds to take possession of the land under acquisition and, therefore, unless and until the plaintiff explains as to why he could not make compliance of section 80, sub-section (1) in respect of the total cause of action which consists a bundle of facts, the application under sub-section (2) is misconceived and, therefore, the Court which is considering the application shall scrutinize the facts stated in the application supported by affidavit that the compliance of the provisions of section 80 of the C.P.C. was impossible in the facts and circumstances of the case taking into consideration the total cause of action. In the presently case, rightly the Court has considered it and rejected the application. The mechanical grant of permissions without application of mind by the courts which permit the institution of suit, is not contemplated under section 80, sub-section (2). On the contrary, the Court is supposed to pass a reasoned order even while granting permission, because the State, which subsequently appears in the matter must know in what manner and on what facts the Court is satisfied in granting such permission or leave to institute the suit without compliance of sub-section (1) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in that eventuality, State will be in a position to challenge the said application before the same Court as provided in section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the orders which are mechanically passed without application of mind and/or without disclosure of the reasons as to why the permission has been granted under sub-section (1) of section 80 of the C.P.C., not only put the State to the prejudice but also, if said order is challenged, the superior courts at loss as to why the permission was granted and, therefore, the reasoned order is required. In the present matter, the courts below have rightly rejected the permission. There is no substance in the revision. It is hereby rejected. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no costs. Application rejected.