Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. In the circumstances of the case, counsel for the parties agree that the revision petition be heard on merits. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner filed a suit challenging the order of dispossession passed by the Municipal Committee. Later on, State was added as party. After trial, the suit was dismissed on merits as well as on the ground that notice under Section 80 CPC was not siven nor leave under Section 80(2) CPC had been obtained. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which is pending and during pendency of the appeal, an application was moved in terms of Section 80(2) CPC which has been dismissed by the learned lower appellate court. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application under Section 80(2) CPC could not be moved in the trial Court as initially state was not a party and subsequently there was oversight by the counsel and it will be in the interest of justice that appeal of the appellant is heard on merits and petitioner is not debarred from getting justice if he is otherwise entitled. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no justification for entertaining the application under Section 80(2) CPC at the appellate stage when the petitioner had opportunity at the trial stage which he failed to avail. Even though there is merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had opportunity to seek leave, earlier, however, in the interest of justice petitioner ought to be permitted to move application under Section 80(2) CPC by compensating the respondents with costs. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 80(2) CPC is set aside and application filed by the petitioner for waiver of notice is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs, which shall be paid within one month from today before the lower appellate court and the same will be a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. 7. Petition is disposed of accordingly.