V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16. 5. 1979 passed by the Civil Judge, Churu.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant Shri Kewalchand has raised only one question of law before me, namely, whether the period of notice which is required to be given under the provisions of section 79 (2) (b) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 has to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation for filing the suit. THE provision of section 79 (2) (b) reads as under :- 79. Suits etc. against Panchayat- (l) No suit prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be maintainable against any Panchayat or (Nyaya-up-samiti) or against any Sarpanch, Panch (Chairman, Member) officer or servant thereof or against any person acting under the direction of any such Panchayat (nyaya up-samiti), Sarpanch, Panch (Chairman member) officer or servant in respect of anything lawfully and in good faith done under this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder. (2) No suit against a Panchayat or a nyaya - up-Samiti or against a Sarpanch, Panch (Chairman, Member) officer or servant thereof or against any person acting under the direction of such Panchayat (nyaya up-samiti) Sarpanch, Panch (Chairman-Member) officer or servant for anything done or purporting to be done under this Act in its or his official capacity, - (a) shall be instituted until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing stating the cause of action the name and the place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the nature of the relief which he claims, has been in the case of a Panchayat, or (nyaya up-samiti) delivered or left at its office and in the case of a Sarpanch, Panch (Chairman-member) officer, servant or person as aforesaid delivered to him or left at his office or usual place of abode and the plaint in such case shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left; or (b) shall be commenced otherwise than within six months next after the accrual of the alleged cause of action. " The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in A. I. R. 1985 M. P. 150 (1) wherein for the purpose of computation of the limitation the period of 2 months for which the statutory notice was required to be given was allowed to be excluded. He has also drawn my attention to the provision of section 15 (2) of the Limitation Act wherein it has been directed that in computing the period of limitation for any suit for which notice has been given or for which the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required in accordance with the requirements of law for the time being in force the period of such notice or as the case may be the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded. Following the specific provisions of section 15 (2) of the Limitation Act 1963 and the judgment cited 1 am of the opinion that the time of 2 months for which the notice was required to be given has to be excluded and, therefore, the suit has been filed within limitation. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court is set aside and the matter is sent back with the direction to dispose of the appeal on merits. .;