ORDER : Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. 1. Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Samapika Mishra, learned ASC for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 31.07.2019, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore in C.S. No. 1210 of 2019, whereby' and whereunder, learned trial court has rejected the application of the plaintiffs-petitioners to waive notice u/s. 80(2) of CPC. 3. Plaintiffs-petitioners filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In paragraph-12 of the plaint it is stated that the defendants are public officers. The defendants intend to demolish the existing structure over the suit land. They filed application u/s. 80(2) CPC to waive notice. In paragraph-4 of the petition it is stated that on 20.07.2019, some officers of the defendants as well as Amin arrived at the spot, measured the suit land and disclosed the kisam of the land as 'Nayanjon'. They threatened the petitioners to demolish all the structures standing over the suit land. Learned trial judge by a laconic order held that no document is produced by the petitioners showing any urgency. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the plaint as well as in the petition, the petitioners have given vivid details of the urgency to waive the notice. 5. Conversely, Ms. Mishra, learned ASC appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 submits that there is no urgency to waive notice. Learned trial judge has rightly rejected the petition. 6. In Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. and others, (2007) 9 SCC 43 , the apex Court held that in view of Sec. 80(2) CPC, it must be held that if leave is refused by the original court, it is open to the superior courts to grant such leave as otherwise in an emergent situation a litigant may be left without remedy once such leave is refused and he is required to wait out the statutory period of two months after giving notice. 7. As would be evident from the plaint as well as petition mentioned supra, plaintiffs-petitioners have made out a case to waive notice u/s. 80(2) CPC. This Court fails to understand as to what documents the plaintiffs shall file to show any urgency. 8. The order has been passed in flagrant violation of the statutory provision. 7. As would be evident from the plaint as well as petition mentioned supra, plaintiffs-petitioners have made out a case to waive notice u/s. 80(2) CPC. This Court fails to understand as to what documents the plaintiffs shall file to show any urgency. 8. The order has been passed in flagrant violation of the statutory provision. If the same is allowed to stand, it will cause miscarriage the justice. 9. In view of the same, the impugned order is quashed. Learned trial court shall admit the plaint and proceed with the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to issuance of notice to Balasore Municipality, defendant no. 3. 10. The petition is disposed of.