Notice
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with notice. ] [ Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits [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 ex The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
1 [(1)] 2 [ Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits 3 [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 4 [delivered to, or left at the office of]
(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, 5 [except where it relates to a railway] a Secretary to that Government;
6[(b)] in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway;
7[(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 authorized by that Government in this behalf;]
(c) in the case of a suit against 8[any other State Government], a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district; 9***
10* * * * *
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.
11[(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 (I); 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 (I), 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.]
Section 80, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pioneer Builders, A.P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-8.pdf 2006-09-25 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-9). CA 6114/1999. CPC 80(1) notice is a condition precedent for a suit against Government; 80(2) is the only exception, and leave to sue without notice must precede institution and rest on urgency of relief, not merits. The State that participates without pleading want of notice may be treated as having waived the defect. Map cpc 80.
On this section: s.80(1) makes two months' notice a condition precedent to a suit against Government; 80(2) is the only statutory exception and requires prior leave founded on urgency of relief, not on the merits. A State that contests the suit without pleading want of notice may be treated as having waived the defect. Pioneer Builders is the teaching file.
-
Disha Constructions vs State of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When notice under Section 80 CPC or any other statutory notice is given within the period of limitation, the period of such notice (typically two months) must be mandatorily excluded from the computation of the limitation period, regardless of when the suit is subsequently filed. Therefore, a suit filed after the original limitation period has expired but within the extended period created by the notice exclusion is within limitation. The period of notice cannot be counted concurrently with the limitation period; to do so would negate the exclusion mandated by Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
On this section: Notice requirement before suit against government - Court confirmed that notice under Section 80 CPC was required and was properly served on defendant No. 1
-
Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The doctrine of strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher principle) applies to State authorities operating dams and similar water retention structures. The State, as owner/operator of a dam, must maintain appropriate water levels in anticipation of foreseeable monsoon rains using available meteorological technology and predictions. The State cannot escape tortious liability by invoking Act of God unless it affirmatively proves by adequate evidence that: (1) water was kept at a reasonable level to absorb normal rainfall; (2) the rainfall was extraordinary and unforeseeable despite meteorological predictions; and (3) release of water was necessary to prevent greater public harm. Once negligence in water management is established and fact of damage is proved (even without exact valuation), reasonable compensation must be awarded. Damages should be apportioned between the natural cause (rainfall) and the negligent act (improper water level maintenance), with compensation awarded only for injury attributable to negligence.
On this section: Requirement for legal notice to State before filing suit. The Court upheld that proper legal notice was served by appellants on State, fulfilling mandatory procedural requirement under Section 80 CPC before civil suit against State could be filed.
-
District Collector, Srikakulam vs Bagathi Krishna Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a suit seeks declaration of title and possession of land and the State Government claims title to the same land through a Gazette Notification, the State Government is a necessary party to the suit and must be impleaded as a party in its own name under Section 79 CPC and Article 300 of the Constitution. Individual government officers (such as District Collector or Forest Officer) cannot file appeals or represent the State's interests in litigation without the State itself being properly impleaded as a party. Non-joinder of such necessary party is fatal to the maintainability of the appeal, particularly where the State's title is in question. Therefore, when a Second Appeal has been filed by government officials without impleading the State as a party, the appeal is not maintainable and must be remanded to the High Court to permit the State's impleadment before proceeding with the decision on merits.
On this section: Requires notice to Secretary of State or Collector before institution of suit involving government; cited as part of the scheme requiring proper State representation
-
Ranvir Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second complaint on the same cause of action and between the same parties is legally maintainable even after dismissal of an earlier complaint, provided the earlier complaint was dismissed not on merits following inquiry under Section 202-203 CrPC, but on account of procedural default by the complainant such as failure to pay process fees. The bar to entertaining a second complaint applies only when the first complaint has been dismissed on merits after a full inquiry by the Magistrate, except in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (AIR 1962 SC 876), namely: (i) where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record; (ii) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint; (iii) where it was manifestly absurd, unjust, fallacious or false; or (iv) where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in the previous proceeding have been adduced. When a complaint is dismissed merely for procedural default and not on merits, a fresh complaint on the same facts is permissible as it is a different action from attempting to recall or review the earlier order of dismissal, which is prohibited under Section 362 CrPC.
On this section: Notice to government before suit for damages; discussed in context of whether notice issued by complainant constituted improper pressure for sanction
-
Achyutanand Choudhary (d) Thr. Lrs vs Luxman Mahto
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A statutory declaration that a particular document is conclusive proof of a fact or legal right does not by itself oust the jurisdiction of civil courts. Such a declaration constitutes a rule of evidence forbidding the court from entertaining further evidence on that issue once the document is produced, but it does not bar the suit itself. The ouster of jurisdiction is a different matter altogether, achieved only through clear statutory language barring jurisdiction. Section 37 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1956, which bars civil court suits to 'vary or set aside any decision or order given or passed under this Act' or with respect to 'any matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act,' creates such a jurisdictional bar, but requires proper pleading specifying under which category (a) or (b) the objection falls and what relevant facts support the objection. In the absence of clear pleading and when a trial is ongoing, the Supreme Court should not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 to interdict the suit.
On this section: Referenced in defendant's petition as requirement for serving notice on government; court notes this was part of preliminary objection regarding maintainability
-
Police Commissioner vs Yash Pal Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police use force to disperse an unlawful assembly, they are authorized to use only reasonable and necessary force as prescribed by Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 14.56 of Punjab Police Rules. The force must be used solely for the purpose of dispersing the assembly and not for punitive or repressive purposes. If the police exceeds this limit and uses excessive or brutal force, it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Constitution, and the state is liable to compensate the victim for the tort committed by its employees. The reasonableness of force used must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the assembly, whether it was armed or unarmed, whether warning was given, and the nature and severity of injuries inflicted.
On this section: Requires notice to be served on government before filing suit for damages against government. The plaintiff complied with this requirement.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… They claimed ownership of the land based on revenue records and alleged that the defendants had unauthorizedly occupied the land approximately three and a half years prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs contended that despite repeated requests and a legal notice served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendants failed to vacate the land. - 3.3. The defendants, the State of Haryana and PWD, contested the suit by filing a written statement dated 17th September, 1985. They raised preliminary objections, asserting that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted …
Questions about Section 80
What have the courts held on Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pioneer Builders, A.P. (25 Sep 2006) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.80(1) makes two months' notice a condition precedent to a suit against Government; 80(2) is the only statutory exception and requires prior leave founded on urgency of relief, not on the merits. A State that contests the suit without pleading want of notice may be treated as having waived the defect. Pioneer Builders is the teaching file. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 80, section 80 CPC, section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 80(2) and cpc 80(1). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pioneer Builders, A.P. (25 Sep 2006).
When did Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 80, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.