Harbans Lal, J.—The instant civil second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Sec. 100 read with Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred in short as ‘C.P.C.’) against the judgment and decree dt. 22.05.2001 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Baran in Civil Regular Appeal No. 54/2000 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dt. 03.05.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran in Civil Suit No. 52/1992 has been set aside and the suit has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal and necessary for its disposal are that that the plaintiff-appellant is an authorized Category Contractor of the Irrigation Department of the State of Rajasthan. In response to the notice issued in this behalf, he submitted his tender on 30.11.1987 for Naveli Dam Project. After negotiation, his tender was accepted on 04.12.1987. The work order amounting to Rs. 1,54,516/- was given to him. It is averred that he had made all necessary arrangements for execution of the work order as per the G-Schedule, but the employees of the Forest Department informed him on 03.03.1988 that the land in which the said work order was being carried out belonged to the Forest Department. They also stopped the work. The plaintiff appellant informed the defendants about this but no action was taken by them to sort out the dispute with the Forest Department. He, therefore, got a legal notice served on defendant No.1 and filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 40,440/- on account of the work executed by him, damages expenses and profits etc. along with interest @ Rs. 1.50% per month. However, he gave up his rest of the claim. The defendants contested the suit by denying the averments made in the written statements. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed by the trial Court, after taking evidence of the parties and affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides the suit for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was decreed against defendant No. 1 along interest @ 6% per annum. The suit was however dismissed as against other defendants. The appeal preferred by the defendants under Sec. 96 of the C.P.C. was allowed. 10,000/- was decreed against defendant No. 1 along interest @ 6% per annum. The suit was however dismissed as against other defendants. The appeal preferred by the defendants under Sec. 96 of the C.P.C. was allowed. The suit was dismissed as a whole on the ground that no proper notice under Sec. 80 of the C.P.C. was served upon the defendants. The said judgment and decree is under challenge in this civil second appeal. 3. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned-judgment and decree as well as the judgment and decree of the trial Court. I have also perused the relevant record. 4. It is not in dispute that the notice purporting to be a notice under Sec. 80 of the C.P.C. has been given and served upon defendant No.1 and the said notice is also for a period of 15 days and not two months as envisaged in Sec. 80(1) of the C.P.C. Admittedly, no notice has been given to defendants No.2 to 5 as is evident from a perusal of the Notice Ex.P.7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that due to bona fide mistake no notice could be given to the State Government and the State Government could not be impleaded as a party either through the Secretary to the concerned department of the State Government or the Collector of the District. He has further submitted that the suit was rightly decreed by the trial Court and the learned first Appellate Court has wrongly dismissed the suit for want of proper notice to the defendant. 5. Learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that the suit was neither properly constituted nor it was filed against the State Government through the Secretary to the Government, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur or through the Collector of the District. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and the relevant provisions of law. 7. Section 79 of the C.P.C. makes provision for suits by or against the Government. It provides that no suit by or against the Government authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be in the case of a suit by or Against the Central Government, the Union of India and in the case of a suit by or against the State Government. 8. It provides that no suit by or against the Government authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be in the case of a suit by or Against the Central Government, the Union of India and in the case of a suit by or against the State Government. 8. Section 80 C.P.C. which deals with the notice in such suits reads as under: Notice.—[(l)] [Save as otherwise provided in Sub-sec. (2), no suit [shall be instituted] against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir)] or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been [delivered to, or left at the office of- (a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, [except where it relates to a railway], a Secretary to that Government; (b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway;] (bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorized by that Government in this behalf;] 9. It is not in dispute that the tenders for construction of Naveli Dam Project were invited by the concerned officers of the State Government in their official capacity and on behalf of the State Government. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no personal allegation against the concerned officers in the plaint. Thus, obviously the suit is against the State Government. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no personal allegation against the concerned officers in the plaint. Thus, obviously the suit is against the State Government. 10. Section 80(1) of the C.P.C. provides that no suit shall be 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, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the Secretary to the Government or the Collector of the District and in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating 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. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such officer in his official capacity. No leave of the Court for institution of the suit has also been obtained under Sec. 80(2) C.P.C. in the instant case. A perusal of the plaint further reveals that the suit has been filed against the Executive Officer, Irrigation Division Baran, Assistant Engineer Irrigation Sub-Division Baran, Junior Engineer Naveli Bandh Pariyojna Irrigation Department Baran, Rajasthan Government through Chief Engineer Irrigation, Jaipur and Additional Chief Engineer Irrigation, Kota. The State Government has not been impleaded as a party either through the Secretary Irrigation, Department of the State Government or through the Collector of the District Baran. The State Government has been impleaded as a defendant No.4 through Chief Engineer and there is no averment in the plaint that he was also Secretary to the Government. As already indicated above, it is also an admitted fact that no notice has been given to defendants No. 2 to 5 including the State Government and the notice has been given only to the Executive Engineer Irrigation Division Baran. No reason for not giving notice to defendant Nos. 2 to 5 has been mentioned in the plaint. As per Sec. 80 C.P.C. no suit can be filed against the State Government without first giving notice of two months. No reason for not giving notice to defendant Nos. 2 to 5 has been mentioned in the plaint. As per Sec. 80 C.P.C. no suit can be filed against the State Government without first giving notice of two months. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit for this reason. 11. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for the decision of which the appeal can be said to be fit for the decision of which the appeal can be said to be fit for admission. The law is well settled and the view taken by the learned Court below is in accordance with the settled law and the provisions of the C.P.C. The appeal therefore, deserves to be dismissed summarily. 12. Consequently, this civil second appeal under Sec. 100 C.P.C. is hereby dismissed. However, without any order as to costs. * * * * *