JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.C Keyal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellants instituted Money Suit No.106/2007 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati for a decree amounting to a total of Rs.19,61,124/- under four different heads as stated in the prayer itself with a further decree for interest pendent life as well as future interest till realization of the claimed amount of Rs.19,61,124/-. 3. In course of the trial, the following issues were framed:- wxyz (1) Whether there is any cause of action of the suit land? zyxw wxyz (2) Whether the suit is maintainable? zyxw wxyz (3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff ix bad for non-joinder of the Union of India as a principal defendant? zyxw wxyz (4) Whether the plaintiff are entitled to any money is prayed for under the agreement dated 22/2/05? zyxw wxyz (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed in the suit? zyxw wxyz (6) Whether the defendants are entitled to compensatory cost? zyxw wxyz (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief/reliefs as prayed for? zyxw wxyz (8) What other relief/reliefs parties are entitled to get? zyxw 4. The relevant facts for the purpose of the appeal is that initially the Money Suit was instituted against seven defendants, who are as follows:- wxyz 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 zyxw wxyz 2. The Chairman, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-781029 zyxw wxyz 3. The Chief Engineer (I&W), Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-29 zyxw wxyz 4. The Superintendent Engineer (I&W), Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-29 zyxw wxyz 5. The Executive Engineer, North Guwahati Sub Division, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Rudreswar, Guwahati-781030 zyxw wxyz 6. The Assistant Executive Engineer, NEHARI, North Guwahati Sub Division, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Rudreswar, Guwahati781030 zyxw wxyz 7. The Financial Advisor, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-29 zyxw 5. It is specifically taken note of that the defendant No.1 is the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources Department. The Financial Advisor, Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Basistha, Guwahati-29 zyxw 5. It is specifically taken note of that the defendant No.1 is the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources Department. It is an admitted position of the parties that notice under Section 80 CPC had been issued to all the seven aforementioned defendants including the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Water Resources Department. In course of the trial proceedings, while adjudicating the Misc (J) Case No.189/2009 preferred by the plaintiffs for impleading the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Water Resources Department to be also a defendant, the order dated 21.08/2009 was passed and accordingly the impleadment was allowed and the plaintiffs were directed to add the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Water Resources Department as a defendant. Accordingly, an amended plaint was filed, wherein the array of parties stood such that the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Water Resources Department was arrayed as the defendant No.1 whereas the Secretary to the Government of India, Water Resources Department, who was originally the defendant No.1 stood arrayed as defendant No.1(A). The other defendants remained as it was. In the aforesaid factual background while deciding the issue No.1 on the question of maintainability of the suit, the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 15.12.2012 had arrived at its conclusion by following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1960 SC 1309 that the provision of Section 80 CPC requiring issuance of a prior notice to the State defendants is a mandatory provision and a consequence of non-issuance of such notice would result in a nonmaintainability of the suit itself. Having relied on the said judgment, the learned trial Court arrived at a factual satisfaction that notice under Section 80 CPC was served on the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources Department, but no notice under Section 80 CPC was served on the newly added defendant i.e. the Union of India. The learned Court also took note of that such notice was not served upon the Union of India as it was originally not arrayed as a defendant in the suit. 6. The learned Court also took note of that such notice was not served upon the Union of India as it was originally not arrayed as a defendant in the suit. 6. In the circumstance, a conclusion was arrived at that the suit itself is not maintainable for noncompliance of the requirement of the Section 80 CPC as regards serving of notice under Section 80 CPC on the defendant Union of India. 7. From the conclusion arrived at by the learned Civil Judge, it is an apparent that by relying on the pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Madras Vs. CP Agencies, (1960) AIR SC 1309 , a view was taken that the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a mandatory provision and a non-compliance of it in any manner would non-suit the plaintiff requiring a dismissal of the suit. Further a view was also taken that although the Secretary to the Government of India in the Water Resources Department may have been served with a notice under Section 80 CPC, the Union of India, itself who were subsequently impleaded had not been issued with any such notice. To understand the conclusion arrived at by the learned Civil Judge by relying upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in CP Agencies (supra), we look into the provisions of the said judgment. 8. In paragraph 2 of the judgment in CP Agencies (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows: wxyz "2. The object of Section 80 is manifestly to give the Government or the public officer sufficient notice of the case which is proposed to be brought against it or him so that it or he may consider the position and decide for itself or himself whether the claim of the plaintiff should be accepted or resisted. The object of Section 80 is manifestly to give the Government or the public officer sufficient notice of the case which is proposed to be brought against it or him so that it or he may consider the position and decide for itself or himself whether the claim of the plaintiff should be accepted or resisted. In order to enable the Government or the public officer to arrive at a decision it is necessary that it or he should be informed of the nature of the suit proposed to be filed against it or him and the facts on which the claim is founded and the precise reliefs asked for." zyxw wxyz In a situation where the appeal was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the appellant in CP Agencies (supra) also relied upon an earlier pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dhian Singh Sobha Singh & Another vs The Union Of India, (1958) AIR SC 274 . In paragraph 30 thereof, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had held as follows: zyxw wxyz 30........ "The Privy Council no doubt laid down in Bhagchand Dagadusa Vs. Secretary of State that the terms of this section should be strictly complied with."............... "One must construe section 80 with some regard to common sense and to the object with which it appears to have been passed...........". zyxw 9. From the aforesaid propositions laid down in CP Agencies (supra) and Dhian Singh (supra), we are to understand that the object of Section 80 CPC is to give a government or a public officer sufficient notice of the case which is proposed to be brought against them so that a consideration may be given as to whether the claim of the plaintiff to be made should be accepted or resisted. We further take note of that in CP Agencies (supra) there is no conclusion by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 80 is mandatory to the extent that any non-compliance thereof in any manner would render the suit non-maintainable. We further take note of that in CP Agencies (supra) there is no conclusion by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 80 is mandatory to the extent that any non-compliance thereof in any manner would render the suit non-maintainable. In fact, in Dhian Singh (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court was of the view that although the Privy Council in 54 Ind App 338: ( AIR 1927 PC 176 ) had laid down that the terms of Section 80 should be strictly complied with but at the same time one must also construe Section 80 with some regard to common sense and to the object for which it was provided for. The object of Section 80 has been clearly spelt out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that it is for the primary purpose to give a government or a public officer sufficient notice so that he may give a consideration and decide for itself or himself whether the claim that is to be made should be accepted or resisted. In the instant case, we have taken note of that the notice by the appellant/plaintiffs herein were duly served to the Secretary to the Government of India in the Water Resources Department and the Secretary had sufficient notice of the claim to arrive at his or its consideration whether to accept or to resist the claim that the plaintiffs have made. 10. Section 80 of the CPC further provides that no suit shall be instituted against the government until the expiry of two months of the delivery of the written notice under Section 80 at the office of the Secretary to that Government. In other words, even if the Section 80 notice would have been delivered by the appellant plaintiffs for claiming relief against the defendants, Union of India, the same ought to have been delivered in the office of the Secretary to the Union of India i.e. Government of India, in the relevant department i.e., the Department of Water Resources. The purpose of delivering the Section 80 notice in respect of the defendants, Union of India in the office of the Secretary to the Government of India in the Water Resources Department would have been to enable the Secretary to give a consideration either to accept or resist the claim of the plaintiffs. The purpose of delivering the Section 80 notice in respect of the defendants, Union of India in the office of the Secretary to the Government of India in the Water Resources Department would have been to enable the Secretary to give a consideration either to accept or resist the claim of the plaintiffs. The same having been already achieved as the Section 80 notice was already served and delivered in the office of the Secretary to the Government of India in the Water Resources Department, the object of Section 80 as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in CP Agencies and Dhian Singh (supra) has been achieved. 11. The object having been achieved, we are of the view that it would be improper to dismiss the suit of the appellant plaintiffs for being non-maintainable on the ground of Section 80 notice was not separately served or delivered for the purpose of the defendants, Union of India in the office of the Secretary of the concerned department. 12. The learned Civil Judge, No.2 Kamrup(M) Guwahati having dismissed the suit on the sole ground of separate notice having not been served or delivered in the appropriate manner to the Union of India, we are of the view that such dismissal by the judgment dated 15.02.2012 would be unsustainable. Accordingly, the judgment dated 15.02.2012 in Money Suit No.106/2007 of the learned Civil Judge No.2 at Kamrup(M) Guwahati is set aside. The matter is now remanded back to the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati which shall now be read to be any of the Civil Judge at Kamrup(M), Guwahati, as may be decided by the learned District Judge for a fresh consideration and for passing of appropriate judgment in the Money Suit No.106/2007. 13. As regards the fresh consideration, it is provided that no further evidence or material would be entertained and the adjudication be done on the basis of the existing materials on record. The requirement be done within a period of 1(one) month from the date of appearance of the respective parties. 14. Accordingly the parties are directed to appear before the appropriate Civil Judge at Kamrup(M) Guwahati on 27.02.2020 and for the purpose appropriate information be obtained from the Court of the learned District Judge at Kamrup(M) Guwahati as to in which Court the matter would be taken up. 15. 14. Accordingly the parties are directed to appear before the appropriate Civil Judge at Kamrup(M) Guwahati on 27.02.2020 and for the purpose appropriate information be obtained from the Court of the learned District Judge at Kamrup(M) Guwahati as to in which Court the matter would be taken up. 15. In terms of the above, the appeal stands disposed of. 16. Send back the LCR immediately.