ORDER

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is finally heard.

2. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/defendnat No.1 has challenged the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kasrawad, District Khargone in RCS-B No.6/2016 whereby its application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint has been rejected. 3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has instituted an action for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,86,886/- from the defendants submitting that she is running a photocopy centre and defendant No.1 has been getting the work of photocopy done from her by inviting tenders which have been awarded to her. She has worked as per the tenders and has submitted bills to defendant No.1 from time to time but as on date of suit a sum of Rs.2,86,886/- has not been paid to her for the work and is outstanding.

4. The defendant No.1 filed an application before the trial Court for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by virtue of Section 108(2) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (here-in-after referred to as "the Adhiniyam, 1993") since as per plaintiff herself she has not instituted the claim within a period of six months from the date of accrual of cause of action to her. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that the contention of the plaintiff that defendants have not paid the amount to her for the work done by her cannot be said to be an act done under the provisions of the

Adhiniyam, 1993.

5. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that as per plaintiff herself the cause of action for institution of the claim has accrued to her in the year 2014 whereas the suit has been instituted by her in the year 2016 which is beyond a period of six months as provided under Section 108(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 hence is apparently barred by time. The defendants had given work of photocopy to the plaintiff under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1993 hence for instituting an action against them the period of limitation would be six months.

6. Per contra learned counsel for plaintiff submits that acts of the defendants cannot be said to have been done or purported to be done under the Adhiniyam, 1993 hence the bar under Section 108 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 would not be applicable. The action of defendants in withholding the amount to the plaintiff to which she is legally entitled cannot be said to be done under the Adhiniyam, 1993 hence the bar as raised by defendant No.1 is not attracted. Reliance has been placed by Nagar Palika, Murena and Another V/s. Shivshankar Gupta 2005 (4) M.P.H.T. 19, I.B.Mishra V/s. Nagar Panchayat Suhagpur and Others 2013 (4) MPLJ 578 and Bhaiyalal Pannalal V/s. Municipal Committee, Murwada 1958

MPLJ 251.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

8. Section 319 of M.P. Municipalities Act,1961 reads as under :-

319. Bar of suit inabsence of notice.— be instituted against any Council or any Councillor, officer or servant thereof or any person acting under the direction of any such Council, Councillor, officer or servant for anything done or purporting to be done under this Act, until the expiration of two months next after a notice, in writing, stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims has been, in the case of a Council delivered or left at its office and in the case of any such member, officer, servant or person as aforesaid, delivered to him or left at his office or usual place of abode; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.

(2) Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within eight months from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any suit instituted under Section 54 of the Specified Relief

Act, 1877 (1 of 1877)