Vineet Kothari, J. - (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 given by the Gram Panchayat in connection with the construction sought to be raised by the plaintiff, could be construed as notice under Sec. 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 Sec. 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: - - JUDGEMENT_15_LAWS(RAJ)1_2016.htm JUDGEMENT_15_LAWS(RAJ)1_20161.htm
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant -Gram Panchayat, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari urged that the notice given by the Gram Panchayat to the plaintiff for the alleged illegal construction and reply thereto by the plaintiff could not sub -serve the purpose of Sec. 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 Sec. 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.;