JUDGMENT : The present appellant was the plaintiff before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Belur, (for brevity referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in O.S.No.82/2002, which he had filed against the present respondents for recovery of money amounting to Rs.49,877.25 with interest there upon at the rate of 12% p.a. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial court was that, the plaintiff-concern, was doing business in Cement and Hardware materials at Belur, Hassan District. The defendants had taken barbed wire (fencing wire) from it in a quantity of 1515 Kgs worth Rs.44692.50 calculated at the rate of Rs.29.50 per Kg. Even after the supply of the barbed wire to the second defendant on credit basis, payment was not made to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff wrote several letters and sent legal notices to the defendants claiming for payment of the pending bill, despite which the defendants failed to make good the payments, which constrained the plaintiff to institute a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.49,877.25 with interest thereupon. 2.1 In response to the suit summons served upon them, the first defendant appeared through its counsel and the second and third defendants were represented by the Assistant Government Pleader. The first defendant filed its written statement. The first defendant in its written statement denied the supply of barbed wire as contended by the plaintiff. It is stated that the true picture of the case of the plaintiff were not revealed by the plaintiff. However, it is stated that on the indent from the second defendant, it procured the barbed wire fence weighing 1515 kgs from the plaintiff and supplied it to the second defendant on credit basis, which was also acknowledged by the second defendant. The first defendant requested the second defendant on several times to make good the payment for supply of barbed wire. Inspite of such repeated requests, demands and personal contacts, the second defendant did not make good the payment. In that regard, the first defendant was also constrained to write a letter to the Principal, Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru. With this the first defendant stated that, it is only the second defendant who is liable and bound to pay the suit claim, but not the first defendant. In that regard, the first defendant was also constrained to write a letter to the Principal, Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru. With this the first defendant stated that, it is only the second defendant who is liable and bound to pay the suit claim, but not the first defendant. The second defendant in its written statement contended that the suit was not maintainable, since no notice as required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been issued. It denied all the plaint averments that the plaintiff had supplied any barbed wire to it, much less as contended by it in its plaint. It denied that any transaction as averred in the plaint had ever taken place. The written statement filed by the second defendant was adopted on behalf of the third defendant. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it has supplied the goods to defendants on credit basis on 1.8.1999? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are due to a sum of Rs.40,223.25 ps to plaintiff as per the bill No.581 dtd:1/8/1999? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interest as claimed? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought ? 5. What order or decree? 4. In order to prove its case the plaintiff got examined its proprietor-Sri Prashanth as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-21. The first defendant, got examined one B.L. Srinivasaiah as DW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.D-1 to Ex.D-18. Defendant nos.2 and 3 did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf. After hearing both side, the trial court in its judgment and decree dated 20.08.2007 answered issue nos.1 to 4 in the negative and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belur, (for brevity referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), in R.A.No.87/2008. The defendant no.1 who was respondent no.1 before the First Appellate Court remained exparte and other two defendants who were respondent nos.2 and 3 were represented by Assistant Government Pleader. 6. The First Appellate Court framed the following four points for its consideration: 1. The defendant no.1 who was respondent no.1 before the First Appellate Court remained exparte and other two defendants who were respondent nos.2 and 3 were represented by Assistant Government Pleader. 6. The First Appellate Court framed the following four points for its consideration: 1. Whether the appellant proves that the defendants have purchased the barbed wire fence weighing 1515 Kgs at the rate of Rs.29.50 ps. per Kg. on credit basis under bill No.581 worth of Rs.44,692.50 ps, on 1.6.1999? 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff without issuance of mandatory notice U/Sec.80 of CPC is not maintainable? 3. Whether the appellant proves that the judgment and decree of the trial court is illegal, opposed to law, facts and evidence on record and liable to be set aside? 4. What order? By its judgment and decree dated 18.04.2009, the First Appellate Court answered point no.1 in the affirmative, points no.2 and 3 in the negative and dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 7. It is against the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 8. This Court, while admitting this appeal framed the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that the suit of the plaintiff without issuance of mandatory notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was not maintainable? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff? 9. In response to the notice being issued, respondent no.1 is being represented by its counsel and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 10. Lower Court records were called for, the same are placed before the Court. 11. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 12. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to henceforth with the ranks they were holding respectively before the Trial Court. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant in her argument submitted that both the courts below have misconstrued that notice as required under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code should necessarily mention in it so. 12. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to henceforth with the ranks they were holding respectively before the Trial Court. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant in her argument submitted that both the courts below have misconstrued that notice as required under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code should necessarily mention in it so. Learned counsel submitted that suffice, if the contents of the notice give them the picture of the dispute and intention of the person issuing notice that he would approach the court in case the demand made in the notice is not complied with. In that regard, learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass and Ors. Vs. Dominion of India and Ors. reported in 1984 SC 1004. 14. Learned counsel for the first respondent in his argument submitted that any notices sent were all only to the first defendant. As such, there is no valid service of notice upon respondent nos. 2 and 3. He further contended that the plaintiff has deliberately failed to prove the transaction. As such, the courts below have appropriately dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 15. Learned High Court Government Pleader in her arguments submitted that the alleged notices at Ex.D.4 and Ex.P.9 cannot be construed as notice to respondent nos.2 and 3 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mere marking a copy to defendant no.2 cannot be construed as notice to the said party asking him to act in a particular manner as requested/asked in the notice. As such, mere marking of a copy would not be construed as service of valid notice upon defendant nos.2 and 3. With this, she submitted that the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the Court below be confirmed as against defendant nos. 2 and 3. 16. The plaintiff, through PW1 apart from reiterating the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief has also produced the letter dated 20.07.1999 said to have been written to it by the first defendant requesting the plaintiff to supply 1835 Kgs of barbed wire to defendant no.2 and to collect the money, once defendant no.2 pays the said money to it. 16. The plaintiff, through PW1 apart from reiterating the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief has also produced the letter dated 20.07.1999 said to have been written to it by the first defendant requesting the plaintiff to supply 1835 Kgs of barbed wire to defendant no.2 and to collect the money, once defendant no.2 pays the said money to it. PW1 has also produced the letter written by defendant no.2 to the plaintiff which is dated 23.07.1999 and marked as Ex.P.2, wherein it is shown that the said defendant has requested for supply of barbed wire. At the bottom of the letter receipt of substantial portion of the goods to be supplied is also acknowledged. Ex.P.3 is an endorsement by the second defendant issued in favour of the first defendant admitting the receipt of quantum of 500 kgs of barbed wire. Ex.P.5 is the letter from first defendant to the second defendant requesting it to make good the payment for supply of the barbed wire. Interestingly, none of these correspondences or letters were denied or disputed by the other defendants. As already observed above, the first defendant in its written statement itself has clearly admitted the transaction averred by the plaintiff in its plaint. However, defendant no.1 has taken the contention that it was for defendant no.2 to make good the payment. 17. D.W.1 who led evidence on behalf of the first defendant re-iterated the contention of the first defendant taken in his written statement, in his evidence also. Thus, even in his evidence D.W.1 acknowledged the alleged transaction, more particularly supply of goods by the plaintiff to the second defendant at the request of the first defendant. However, he contended that, it was the second defendant who was liable to pay the bill amount due to the plaintiff and that despite several requests and reminders made by the first defendant, the second defendant has not acceded to it. Interestingly, neither defendant no.2 nor defendant no.3 chose to enter the witness box and to examine any witnesses on their behalf atleast to prove the contention taken up by them in their written statement. Interestingly, neither defendant no.2 nor defendant no.3 chose to enter the witness box and to examine any witnesses on their behalf atleast to prove the contention taken up by them in their written statement. As such, the denial of the plaint averment regarding the supply of goods by plaintiff to defendant no.2 which was at the request of defendant no.1 was confined only to written statement of the defendant no.2, which was not proved by those two defendants by leading evidence or producing any documents in their support. 18. Considering the fact that defendant no.1 both in his written statement as well in his evidence has admitted the transaction as averred by the plaintiff in its plaint and also going through the documentary evidence produced by both side, the First Appellate Court has answered point no.1 in the affirmative which holds that the appellant(plaintiff) has proved that the defendants have purchased the barbed wire fence weighing 1515 Kgs at the rate of Rs.29.50 ps. per Kg on credit basis worth of Rs.44,692.50ps as on 01.08.1991. The said finding of the First Appellate Court has not been challenged by any of the respondents/defendants therein before any Forum. As such, the finding given by the First Appellate Court regarding the alleged transaction and liability of paying a sum of Rs.44,692.50 to the plaintiff has remained un-challenged. However, despite giving affirmative answer to the said finding the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, which in turn had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff only on the ground that the notice as contemplated under Section 80 of CPC was not issued to the defendants. As such, the suit was not maintainable. 19. Learned Counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court to Ex.P.5,Ex.P.6, Ex.P.9 and Ex.D.4,contended that these letters and notices in clear terms apart from giving details of the transaction also have held the recipient there under liable to make good the payment to the plaintiff and has also clearly stated that on the failure of the recipient of the notice, the plaintiff would be constrained to take appropriate legal action against them. Thus, a mere absence of mentioning specifically that the said notice was under Section 80 of the CPC would not take away the validity of the said notice and it cannot be held that there is non-compliance of Section 80 of the CPC. 20. In support of her argument, learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass case (supra), wherein at para no.20, Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below: 20. ……The whole object of serving a notice under Section 80 is to give the Government sufficient warning of the case which is going to be instituted against it was that the Government, if it so wished, settle the claim without litigation or afford restitution without recourse to a court of law.” 21. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had sent communication in writing with respect to the suit transaction under Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.9 and under Ex.D5. Ex.P5 is a letter by the plaintiff-Establishment to the first defendant and dated 09.06.2000, wherein the plaintiff after clearly stating regarding the supply of barbed wire of worth Rs.40,223.25 by it, and the payment due has requested the addressee to settle the bill along with 21% interest within seven days from the date of the letter, otherwise the plaintiff would be constrained to go to the Court of law to claim its amount. Thus, in the said letter itself, the plaintiff has clearly mentioned its intention that in case of noncompliance of the demand made in the notice/letter, it would be constrained to approach the Court of law regarding the claim of the amount. In the second letter at Ex.P.6, which is dated 09.04.2001, the plaintiff once again has requested the first defendant to make good the bill amount amounting to Rs.40,223.25. A copy of the same was sent to the third defendant i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Hassan. Ex.P.9 is the legal notice dated 07.08.2001 issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the first defendant, wherein it is clearly stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the first defendant at whose request the goods were supplied by the plaintiff was due by a sum of Rs.40,223.25 and the said amount was demanded to be made good within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. A copy of the said legal notice is also shown to have been sent to defendant nos.2 and 3. Ex.D.4 is one more legal notice dated 10.07.2000 issued on behalf of the plaintiff to defendant nos.1 and 2 wherein apart from giving details of the transaction about supply of the barbed wire at the request of the first defendant to the second defendant. The plaintiff has also stated that the bill amount of Rs.40,223.25 is still outstanding and intimated the addressee in that notice that in case of their failure to make good the claim amount within 15 days there from, the plaintiff would be constrained to take appropriate legal action against them at the cost and consequences and risk of the addressee. 22. No doubt, none of these four exhibits anywhere mentioned specifically that they be construed as legal notices issued under 80 of the CPC. However, a reading of the those notices and more particularly, the legal notice at Ex.D.4 and Ex.P.9 clearly mentions that apart from giving details of the transaction of supply of goods, the plaintiff has specifically demanded the first defendant to make good the payment under the bill and in case of non-payment, the plaintiff would be constrained to approach the court and take appropriate legal action against them. It is nothing but a clear warning given by the supplier of the goods to the recipient of the goods warning the addressees, more particularly, the first defendant that in case, the addressee in the notice failed to comply the demand made in the notice, the plaintiff would be going to take appropriate legal action against them including approaching the competent court of law in that regard. Thus, in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ghanashyam Dass case (supra) as to what a notice under Section 80 of the CPC would constitute, Ex.P.9 can be considered as a notice under Section 80 of the CPC also. However, it is not the case of defendant no.1 that the suit against it was not maintainable for non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of the CPC. On the contrary, the said defendant no.1 in its written statement itself apart from admitting the alleged transaction has stated that it was only defendant no.2 who was liable to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff. On the contrary, the said defendant no.1 in its written statement itself apart from admitting the alleged transaction has stated that it was only defendant no.2 who was liable to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff. Thus, the alleged non-serving of any notice under Section 80 of the CPC would have no consequence as against defendant no.1. If at all, any such notice was required to be issued or served, it was only upon defendant nos.2 and 3. 23. In the instant case, as observed above, both letters at Ex.P.5 and P.6 as well legal notice at Ex.P.9 was addressed to defendant no.1 alone. They were not addressed to defendant nos. 2 and 3. In those three documents demand was made as against defendant no.1 to make good the bill amount said to be due as against the plaintiff. As such, the warning given by the plaintiff that in case of non-compliance of the demand made, the taking of appropriate legal action would be as against defendant no.1, but not as against defendant nos. 2 and 3. Mere marking of a copy of the same to other two defendants in the absence of any addition while marking, stating that it is for compliance by them, also can only be taken as for information. As such, the specific demand made in those three documents at Ex. P.5, Ex. P.6 and Ex. P.9 is only as against defendant no.1. Thus, it has to be held that even though Ex.P.9 can be construed as a notice under Section 80 of the CPC, since the said notice being aimed at defendant no.1 but not to defendant nos.2 and 3, it has to be held that there was no compliance under Section 80 of the CPC as against defendant nos.2 and 3. 24. In the light of the above finding that the compliance of Section 80 of the CPC has not been complied as against defendant nos.2 and 3, both the courts below are justified in dismissing the suit as against defendant nos.2 and 3 as not maintainable. 24. In the light of the above finding that the compliance of Section 80 of the CPC has not been complied as against defendant nos.2 and 3, both the courts below are justified in dismissing the suit as against defendant nos.2 and 3 as not maintainable. However, the First Appellate Court even after giving its finding to point no.1, holding that the appellant has proved that the suit transaction has taken place and that the plaintiff has supplied 1515 Kgs of barbed wire at the rate of Rs.29.50 per Kg and it was entitled for Rs.44,692.50 was not justified in dismissing the suit even as against (defendant no.1) respondent no.1 before it, only on the premise that Section 80 of the CPC was not complied when in fact there was no requirement of such compliance as against the said respondent no.1 (defendant no.1). Thus, in view of the fact that the defendants, more particularly first defendant has not challenged the finding of the First Appellate Court, which has held the suit transaction has taken place and the plaintiff is entitled for the bill amount claimed by it and in view of the fact that the said supply of the goods by the plaintiff to defendant no.2 was at the specific written request made by defendant no.1 as per Ex.P.1, which has resulted in the creation of a contract between the first defendant and the plaintiff, it is the first defendant who is liable to pay the suit claim together with interest thereupon to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer substantial questions of law partly in affirmative and proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Belur, in O.S.No.82/2002, dated 20.08.2007, and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Belur, in R.A. No. 87/2008, dated 18.04.2009 are set-aside and the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed holding that the first defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.49,877.25 with interest thereupon at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realization. The suit against defendant nos. 2 and 3 is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Draw modified decree accordingly.