Failure to Serve Section 80 CPC Notice Renders Decree Void, Executing Court Must Examine Nullity: Supreme Court

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that failure to serve a mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) prior to filing a suit against a government entity renders any resulting decree a nullity. The Court emphasized that such a decree, being void in law, can be challenged and declared unenforceable even at the execution stage. The executing court, under Section 47 CPC, is required to consider any plea asserting nullity of a decree, despite its limited mandate to deal only with execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, highlighted that Section 80 must be strictly complied with, as it pertains to jurisdictional prerequisites for instituting a suit against the state or its instrumentalities. When such notice is not served, the trial court’s authority becomes fundamentally flawed, affecting the very root of its jurisdiction.

In the case before the Court, a state-owned corporation was added as a party in a money-recovery suit, but it had not been served with the statutory notice under Section 80. The trial court nonetheless proceeded to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The executing court declined to entertain objections raised based on this failure, and the High Court upheld the decree. However, the Supreme Court overturned both decisions, reiterating that non-compliance with Section 80 nullifies the decree. The Court drew attention to its earlier ruling in Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan to underscore that an executing court, while generally restricted to the execution parameters of a decree, must examine such fundamental objections when raised, including issues like jurisdiction or maintainability.

Further, the judgment reaffirmed the principle that when a decree is void for jurisdictional defects, its invalidity can be asserted anytime, even during the execution stage or in collateral proceedings. The Court observed that the executing court had erred by rejecting the jurisdictional objection at the threshold without examining its merit. As a result, the Supreme Court declared the decree passed against the state-owned company a nullity and allowed the appeal, thereby setting aside the impugned order.

This ruling clarifies that even technically limited execution proceedings allow room for challenging decrees that suffer from jurisdictional infirmities. It reinforces that Section 80’s mandate is not merely procedural but forms a jurisdictional safeguard: its breach cannot be overlooked and must be addressed by the executing court when properly raised. The judgment underscores that a decree passed in disregard of such a mandatory provision cannot stand and must be nullified on jurisdictional grounds.

In essence, the Supreme Court confirmed that execution courts must uphold not only the letter of the decree but also the foundational legality underpinning its issuance.