B. K. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) AN issue has been framed about the necessity of a notice under Section 80, Civil procedure Code, before the filing of the present suit. It is not disputed that the municipality had been superseded and an Administrator appointed. Probably the attention of the Court below was not drawn to Tikaram Vithoba v. Municipal committee, Sindi, 1954 Nag LJ 683 (A) which lays down that after supersession of a Municipal Committee under Section 57 (2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities act, the committee is wholly out of picture and Section 48 of the Municipalities Act does not apply to a Municipal Committee which is rendered dormant by its supersession but that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply as the property of the Committee vests in the State. This ruling was binding on the Court below. ( 2 ) THE above decision of Mndholkar J. seeks to extend the principle enunciated in the Division Bench decision reported in Damodar Tukaram Mangalmoorti v. Municipal Committee, Nagpur, ILR (1951) Nag 81] : (AIR 1951 Nag 47 (2)) (B); but, with great respect, I feel doubtful if it could have been stretched to that extent. In Mohammad Shafi v. Sialkot Municipality, A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document