Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The only argument advanced is that ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. has been granted by Trial Court without deciding question of maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and Section 106 of Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and, therefore, impugned orders are patently illegal.

3. This issue has been considered by a Special Bench of this Court in Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Vs. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad and others, 2010 ADJ Page 1 (SFB)(LB) and in the judgment delivered by myself (concurred by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J. on this issue), it has been said:

"622. Now we come to the second part of this issue i.e. 10 (b). The legislative intent of Section 80 is to give the Government sufficient notice of the suit which is proposed to be filed against it so that it may reconsider the decision and decide for itself whether the claim made could be accepted or not. The object of the section is advancement of justice and securing public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation (Bihari Chowdhary and another Vs. State of Bihar and others 1984 (2) SCC 627 ; State