Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arises from an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), brought on behalf of the plaintiff (a woman). The plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking compensation of Rs. 4,000 for the demolition of her houses against the State of Manipur (defendant No. 1) and two other defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge No. 2, Manipur, rejected the plaint on the ground that no notice under Section 80 of the CPC was served on defendant No. 1 (the State of Manipur) or defendant No. 2 (a Public Officer). The present opinion addresses the challenge to that rejection by way of the Section 115 application (and attendant revision).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the rejection of the plaint for failure to serve a notice under Section 80 of the CPC was legally correct.
2. Whether an application under Section 115 of the CPC is maintainable against the impugned order of rejection, given the availability of an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.
3. Whether the rejection of a plaint is to be treated as a "decree" under the deeming provision in sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the CPC, and consequently whether such a rejection is appealable under Section 96.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• Mr. Paul, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order of the learned Court below is an "order" and therefore not appealable. (This submission is recorded in the opinion.)
• Independently, the opinion records that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error committed by the learned Court below in rejecting the plaint. (This is recorded as the Court's observation.)

No detailed account of any counter-arguments by the State or other defendants is contained in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds in two linked strands:

1. On the Section 80 compliance issue, the court observed that a notice under Section 80 of the CPC is mandatory where a suit is filed against the Government or a Public Officer in respect of acts purportedly done in an official capacity. The court emphasised that service of such a notice forms part of the cause of action and that the plaint must contain an averment that the requisite notice has been delivered or left with the defendant. Because the plaint in this case did not contain any such averment, the learned Court below was correct in rejecting the plaint.
2. On the procedural remedy available against the rejection, the court held that the application under Section 115 CPC was not maintainable because an appeal lies under Section 96 of the CPC against the order rejecting a plaint. The court relied upon the definition of "decree" in sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the CPC, noting that the definition expressly provides that a decree "shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint." Consequently, even though rejection of a plaint is not a formal decree in the conventional sense, it is included within the deeming provision and therefore constitutes a decree for purposes of appeal under Section 96. The court thus found Mr. Paul's submission (that the impugned order is merely an order and not appealable) to be without force.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The court rejected the application under Section 115 of the CPC and dismissed the revision.

Explicit consequences stated in the opinion:

• The application (under Section 115 CPC) is rejected.
• The rule is discharged.
• The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
• The revision is dismissed.

The opinion contains no discussion of broader legal or doctrinal implications beyond the direct effect on these parties; it does not purport to establish any new precedent beyond applying the statutory deeming provision that rejection of a plaint is included within the definition of "decree" for purposes of appeal under Section 96.