ORDER 9.8.2011 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl.Government Advocate. Order dated 12.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Salipur rejecting the petitioner’s petition u/s 80(2), CPC for Leave to institute the suit before service of notice to the State-defendant and refusing to admit the suit is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Plaintiff’s suit is for demarcating the boundary line of plaintiffs plot bearing No.2103/2460 which is adjacent to Government plot Nos.2141 and 2116 and to permanently injunct the defendants not to cause damage or demolish the latrine of the plaintiffs-petitioners on the assertion that the latrine in question stands on the plot of the plaintiffs whereas the defendants have falsely claimed that it stands on the government land and have threatened to demolish the same. Before expiry of the period of notice u/s. 80, CPC on the State Government, the petitioners filed a petition u/s. 80(2), CPC which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioners have admitted that they have encroached a portion of the government land. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no where the petitioners have admitted to have encroached a portion of the government land and constructed a latrine thereover and that, on the other hand, it is the plea of the plaintiffs that they have constructed the latrine over there own land which the defendants claimed to be constructed over the government land. Essentially, there is a dispute with regard to the boundary of the lands of both parties. The fact that nowhere the plaintiffs have admitted that they have encroached a portion of the government land is not disputed by the learned State Counsel. This Court in the case of M/s. Prakash Industries Limited and another v. Smt. Maitri Shukla and others; AIR 1998 Orissa 45 has elucidated the scope of S.80(2), CPC in the following words :- “Section 80(2) CPC has been introduced in the amended Code of Civil Procedure with a view to mitigate the rigours of Sub-section (1) of Section 80 and to enable a person to seek urgent and immediate relief. It is in the nature of an exception to Section 80(1) and enables the plaintiff to file a suit to obtain an urgent and immediate relief without serving any notice as required by Sub-section (1) subject to the condition that such a suit has to be filed with leave of the Court. The most important condition envisages under Section 80(2) is relating to urgency in the matter. Where the Court is satisfied that urgent or immediate relief is required and the plaintiff would not be in a position to wait for the period of notice to expire, leave may be granted to a plaintiff to file suit against the State without service of notice contemplated under Section 80(1). Even in such cases where leave is granted, the Court is enjoined not to grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, without giving the State reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief sought for in the suit. As indicated in the proviso, if upon hearing the parties, the Court is satisfied that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted, the Court is to return the plaint for presentation after complying with the requirement regarding service of notice contemplated under Section 80(1). It is thus clear that Section 80(2) has been introduced with a view to entertain suits where urgent or immediate relief is required to be given.” It is found from the impugned order that the Court below has not considered the scope of S. 80(2), CPC in its proper perspective with relation to the facts of the present case and there has been no finding at all whether the case is one of urgency or not. In the circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the trial Court to reconsider the petition afresh. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. In view of disposal of the writ petition M.C. No.10998/11 stands disposed of. Issue UCC as per rules. Petition disposed of.