The exchange of notice and reply between the plaintiff and the Gram Panchayat served the purpose of putting the Gram Panchayat on notice about the suit to be filed against them, as required by Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 15.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No.26/2013 – Shri Chunni Lal Paneri & Anr. Vs. Shri Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bedla, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff against the Gram Panchayat, Bedla, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur, holding that the reply to the notice given by the Gram Panchayat in connection with the construction sought to be raised by the plaintiff, could be construed as notice under Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the present suit having been filed after expiry of two months period after such reply, was not hit by the bar of the provisions of Section 109 of the Act of 1994 and the suit was maintainable, and therefore, the learned appellate court remanded the case back to the learned trial court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), City South, Udaipur, setting aside its order dated 13.09.2013 of the learned trial court with the direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial in accordance with law.

2. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 of the learned appellate court is quoted below for ready reference:-

^^12- ;g rks Li”V gS fd fnukad 23-7-2012 dks oknh dh vksj ls tks tokc is’k fd;k x;k og izfroknh xzke iapk;r }kjk izsf”kr uksfVl dk mrj Fkk ysfdu bl tokc ds voyksdu ls ge ;g ikrs gSa fd blesa tks rF; fy[ks x, gSa os lHkh rF; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 109 dh ea’kk iwjh djrs gSaA bl tokc esa oknh us fookfnr LFky ij vius dCts o cus jgus ds vk/kkj dks Li”V fd;k gSA blds vykok mlus bl ckr ls Hkh vkxkg fd;k gS fd okafNr dk;Zokgh ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa mls dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus iMs+xhA blds vykok blesa oknh ds fuokl LFkku dk Hkh Li”V fooj.k gSA bl izdkj gekjk ;g er gS fd ;g tokc fnukafdr 23-7-2012 vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 109 dh ea’kk iwjh djus okyk gSA blesa okn gsrqd vuqrks”k dh izd`fr dk Hkh Li”V mYys[k gS vkSj blesa ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd uksfVl esa of.kZr vuqlkj dk;Zokgh ugha gksus ij oknh okn nk;jh gsrqr vxzlfjr gksxkA bl laca/k esa ;g Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS fd fnukad 23-7-2012 dks ;g tokc fn;s tkus ds nks ekg i’pkr~ gh okn ¼27-12-2012½ dks is’k fd;k x;kA

vkns’k

18- vihykFkhZx.k@oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS vkSj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼d-[k-½ mn;iqj ‘kgj nf{k.k] mn;iqj }kjk okn la[;k 01@2013 bZ-nh- esa ikfjr fu.kZ; 13-9-2013 ftlds tfj, okn dks ukeatwj fd;k x;k gS] dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os okn esa fof/k vuqlkj vfxze dk;Zokgh djsaA

19- fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa j[kh tkosaA

,lMh@&

¼vthr dqekj fgaxj½

vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k]

dze&5] mn;iqjA**

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Gram Panchayat, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari urged that the notice given by the Gram Panchayat to the plaintiff for the alleged illegal construction and reply thereto by the plaintiff could not sub-serve the purpose of Section 109 of the Act of 1994, which specifically requires to give an advance notice of two months prior to filing of the suit, specifically stating the cause of action, name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the nature of relief, which he claims and the period of two months should necessarily elapse before such suit is instituted, otherwise such suit is barred and hit by the provisions of Section 109 of the Act of 1994. Therefore, the learned appellate court was not justified in holding otherwise and directing the learned trial court to hold trial in accordance with law.

4. No one appears for the plaintiff-respondent despite service of notice.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant-Gram Panchayat.

6. Section 109 of the Act of 1994, as quoted in the memo of appeal, is quoted below for ready reference:-

“109. Suits etc. against Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad.-

(1) No suit or other civil proceeding against a Panchayati Raj Institution or against any member, officer or servant thereof or against any person