JUDGMENT : 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties to oppose this revisional application in spite of service. 3. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for damages and is directed against order dated December 21, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore, District : 24 Parganas (South) in Misc. Case No. 16259 of 2014. 4. The plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 3451 of 2010 praying damages for civil wrong of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crore only). The learned Trial Judge by the judgment and decree dated February 01, 2014 dismissed the said suit. The plaintiff by an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 16259 of 2014 sought review of the said judgment and decree. The learned Trial Judge has dismissed the said Misc. Case by the impugned order. 5. Mr. Naba Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit solely on the ground for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that the notice under Section 80 of the Code was filed by the plaintiff and it is on the record. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Trial Judge, therefore, has committed an error by dismissing the Misc. Case seeking review of the judgment and decree dated February 1, 2014. 6. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the materials on record. 7. It appears on perusal of the memorandum of review of the said judgment and decree that the petitioner is seeking review of the said judgment and decree solely on the ground that in spite of the existence of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on record the learned Trial Judge has committed an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure although in the plaint has claimed service of such notice prior to filing of the suit. 8. 8. It further appears on perusal of the judgment dated February 1, 2014 that the suit was dismissed not only on the ground for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code but also on merit. The relevant findings of the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the suit are quoted below:- “The plaintiff files the instant suit praying for damage cost to the plaintiff due to civil wrong committed by the defendant. As per contention of the plaint case, the plaintiff has elaborately stated the history of his service life and the agony faced by him for the acts of the department. It is admitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was finally compulsorily retired from service on 18.07.1996 and the plaintiff files the instant suit in the year 2010. As per materials stated in Ext. 20 the plaintiff was retired from government service the retiral benefits has been released. The plaintiff also aggrieved by the order of the department regarding his posting and transfer. It is the pure administration of the department and that matter cannot be challenged before a Civil Court. Moreover, as per materials on record, the plaintiff also moved before the Hon’ble High Court in this regard. The plaintiff also filed application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal being Case No. OA-298/2003 and the Hon’ble Tribunal has directed the authorities to make payment of the subsistence allowance including arrears. Considering the facts regarding the grievance of the plaintiff also filed the instant suit stating the same grievance expressing that the defendant has committed civil wrong. From the documents as produced by the plaintiff I find that the plaintiff has ventilated his grievance before the proper forum from time to time and got reliefs against the respondent and plaintiff again filed the instant suit for damage. In this premises, my considered view as the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant and as per contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff suffered in physical and mental agony. The plaintiff retired in the year 1996 but the plaintiff files the instant suit after long gap of time regarding the facts happened in his service life which is not under the purview of civil wrong and as it is an administrative matter it is not under the jurisdiction of Civil Court.” 9. The plaintiff retired in the year 1996 but the plaintiff files the instant suit after long gap of time regarding the facts happened in his service life which is not under the purview of civil wrong and as it is an administrative matter it is not under the jurisdiction of Civil Court.” 9. No doubt the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the suit has recorded that the plaintiff has failed to produce any notice under Section 80 of the Code but the suit was not dismissed on the said ground alone. 10. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was dismissed only on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to produce the notice under Section 80 of the Code as such the judgment and decree dismissing the suit cannot be reviewed on the said ground. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 12. Accordingly, CO 1308 of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the party subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.