AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners/plaintiffs filed civil revision against impugned order dated 28.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) in Civil Suit No.3855-2026 (Annexure P-1) titled as “Vikas Dhuper and others Vs. Shalu Chopra and Others” whereby application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 80 (2) read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-2) seeking exemption from serving statutory notice upon defendant Nos.5 and 6 has been wrongly declined without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Learned counsel representing petitioners/plaintiffs pointed out that Vikas Dhuper and others filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.05.2025. Along with the suit, petitioners filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and also filed application under Section 80 (2) read with Section 151 CPC to dispense with the service of notice to defendant Nos.5 and 6 i.e. District Town Planner, Gurugram and Sub Registrar, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gurugram respectively who are holding public offices in their official capacity. Application was filed under Section 80 (2) CPC since during the pendency of present suit, respondent Nos.1 to 3 managed to procure no objection certificate from respondent No.5 and wanted to execute the sale deed through respondent No.6. The said no objection certificate dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure P-4) procured by the private respondents from official respondent No.5 is a fabricated and fictitious document. Considering the nature of litigation and the aforesaid factual position, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were already arrayed as defendants. Considering the urgency, present application was filed under Section 80 (2) CPC which has been wrongly rejected by the trial Court by passing impugned order dated 28.07.2026 (Annexure P-3). There is strong apprehension regarding further alienation of suit property. It is submitted that impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 28.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) may kindly be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Section 80 (2) CPC may kindly be allowed as prayed for.
On advance notice, Mr. Anuj Garg, DAG, Haryana has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 who has not opposed present civil revision.
I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell along with permanent injunction in which they have arrayed private defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant Nos.5 and 6 i.e. District Town Planner and Sub Registrar, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gurugram respectively. Since the defendant Nos.5 and 6 were arrayed in their official capacity, therefore, an application was filed under Section 80 (2) of CPC seeking exemption from serving the mandatory two months' prior notice to defendants No. 5 and 6.
Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 80(2) of CPC, which reads as under:
“Section 80. Notice
(1)xxx xxx xxx
(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 (1); 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)xxx xxx xxx”
As per version of petitioners/plaintiffs, respondent/defendant No.5 District Town Planner has already issued no objection certificate with regards to the property in dispute and the plaintiffs apprehended that private defendants may further alienate the suit property on the basis of said no objection certificate. Therefore, in order to avoid further complications in the litigation, the respondents/defendant Nos.5 and 6 are also arrayed as defendants. Facts of the case clearly indicate that no objection certificate is already issued by the respondent/defendant No.5, therefore, urgency is involved in the present case. Learned trial Court without any convincing reason has declined the application filed under Section 80 (2) CPC. The very purpose of giving advance notice to the State is to apprise them about the matter in controversy so that some concrete steps could be taken at their end. Once, no objection certificate is already issued by the respondent/defendant No.5, therefore, apprehension in the mind of plaintiffs/petitioners is genuine. Considering the urgency, civil revision preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs is allowed. Consequently, impugned order dated 28.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the application filed under Section 80 (2) CPC is accordingly accepted.
My observations will have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.