JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed by the plaintiff/appellant impleading Sub Registrar, Dev Prayag, Tehri Garhwal as one of the party defendant No.1 with the object that in the event of passing of the decree for cancelling of the sale deed, same may be brought into notice of Sub Registrar forthwith. Perusal of the plaint reveals that no relief was claimed against the defendant No.1. 2. Section 80 of the C.P.C. reads as under:- “80. Notice.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (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 a 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 authorised by that Government in this behalf; (c) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that 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. (2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit: Provided that the court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1). (3) No suit 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 shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice— (a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and (b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated. ” 3. Having perused Section 80 of the C.P.C., I have absolutely no hesitation in holding that Section 80 notice is required when suit is filed against the public officer or State Government for any act purporting to be done by such public officer or State Government. However, if public officer or State Government is impleaded as proforma defendant and no effective relief is sought against public officer or State Government, then, of course, there would be no requirement of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.. 4. However, if public officer or State Government is impleaded as proforma defendant and no effective relief is sought against public officer or State Government, then, of course, there would be no requirement of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.. 4. In the present case, earlier ex-parte injunction order was granted and, thereafter, it was vacated on the ground that prior to the institution of the suit, no notice was served under Section 80 C.P.C. nor any exemption was sought to file suit against the defendant No.1 without serving notice under Section 80 C.P.C.. 5. In view of the finding recorded hereinbefore that notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is required to be served only when action/omission of any public officer or State Government is under challenge and relief is sought against the public officer or State Government and not when public officer or State Government is impleaded as one of the formal party defendant. In the present case, since no effective relief is sought against the defendant No.1 Sub Registrar, therefore, there was no need to serve prior Notice under Section 80 C.P.C. or to seek exemption under Section 80 (2) C.P.C. Consequently, order impugned does not sustain in the eyes of law. 6. Present appeal is thus allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside. Ex-parte injunction is restored, however, Trial Court is directed to decide the ad-interim injunction application at its own merit in accordance with law preferably within 60 days from the date copy of this order is produced before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, learned Trial Court shall frame preliminary issue of valuation of the suit and payment of court and decide the same as preliminary issue.