The purpose of Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to put the Public body or the Panchayatri Raj Institution covered under the said Act to an advance notice about the intended filing of the civil suit against them with the cause of action stated therein, so that if any corrective measure can be undertaken by such Public Body, it can be so done within the stipulated period of two months avoiding litigative process.

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 S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.397/2014 The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bedla, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur Vs. Sh.Chunni Lal Paneri & Anr. Judgment, Wednesday, 06.01.2016. 2 of 7 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 23-07-2012 dks oknh dh vksj ls tks tokc is’k fd;k x;k og izfroknh xzke iapk;r }kjk izsf”kr uksfVl dk mŸkj Fkk ysfdu bl tokc ds voyksdu ls ge ;g ikrs gS fd blesa tks rF; fy[ks x, gS os lHkh rF; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 109 dh ea’kk iwjh djrs gSA 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 gSA fd okafNr dk;Zokgh ugh djus dh fLFkfr esa mls dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus iM+sxhA blds vykok blesa oknh ds fuokl LFkku dk Hkh Li”V fooj.k gSA bl izdkj gekjk ;g er gS fd ;g tokc fnuakfdr 23-07-2012 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;ZOkkgh ugha gksus ij oknh okn nk;jh gsrq vxzlfjr gksxkA bl lac/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 ¼27-12-2012 dks½ Iks’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-01@2013 bZ-nh- esa ikfjr fu.kZ; 13-09-2013 ftlds tfj, okn dks ukeatwj fd;k x;k gS] dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS fd os okn esa fof/k vuqlkj vfxze dk;Zokgh djsA

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

SD/-

¼vthr dqekj fgaxj½

vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k]

Øe&5] mn;iqjA

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Gram Panchayat, Mr.Muktesh Maheshwari urged that the notice given by the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.397/2014 The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bedla, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur Vs. Sh.Chunni Lal Paneri & Anr. Judgment, Wednesday, 06.01.2016. 4 of 7 Gram Panchayat to the plaintiff for the alleged illegal construction and reply thereto by the plaintiff could not subserve 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 199