( 1 ) APPELLANT is the 1st defendant, the Village Panchayat Committee, Harihal, belgaum Taluk. The 1st respondent is plaintiff 1, respondents 2'to 6 are the defendants 2 to 6 and the other respondents 7 and 8 are plaintiffs 2 and 3. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit site abcd and LMNO as shown in the plaint sketch. The plaint allogation was that that the Village Panchayat wanted to lay a road in the properties belonging the plaintiffs without acquiring the same or by adopting other lawful means Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are said to have filed a memo stating that they are not interested in prosecuting the suit. The trial Court held that the 1st plaintiff had failed to prove his possession on the date of suit. It, accordingly dismissed the suit. The 1st plaintiff appealed. The lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that plaintiff 1 had established his lawful possession of the suit property on the date of the suit It, accordingly, decreed the suit in favour of the 1st plaintiff ( 2 ) IT is urged by Sri B. V. Krishnaswamy Rap, appearing for the appellant, that the suit as brought against the Village Panchayat is not maintainable since the Village Panchayat is sued as represented by its chairman. He has relied on Rule 16 of the Mysore Panchayats Secretaries powers and Duties Rules, 1961. His contention is that the Village Panchayat could be sued only through its Secretary and that therefore, the suit is not maintainable against the appellant Village Panchayat. Rule 16 reads as follows : the Secretary shall have power to file complaints and suits on behalf of the Panchayat and to conduct that proceedings on its behalf under the orders of the Panchayat. Under S. 6 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 it is stated that every panchayat shall be a body corporate and shall have a perpetual succession and a common seal, and subject to such restrictions as are imposed by or under 'this or any other enactment, shall be vested with the capacity of suing or being sued in its corporate name. In Brahma suraiah v. Laxmi Narayana AIR. 1970 SC. 816. the interpretation of this rule was considered. In Brahma suraiah v. Laxmi Narayana AIR. 1970 SC. 816. the interpretation of this rule was considered. It was held that a private complaint cannot be entertained for the commission of an offence under S. 220 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act 1959 and that a complaint can be filed under Rule 16 only by the Secretary of the Panchayat and by na one else. The High court had taken the view that this rule did not preclude persons other than the Secretary from filing a complaint but it only debarred complaints being made by others on behalf of the panchayat. That view was held to be erroneous and it was held that the complaint could be filed under R. 16 only by the Secretary of the Panchayat and by no one else. It was also observed that the Secretary has to act on behalf of the Panchayat and it is the Panchayat that would be vitally interested in preventing and stopping any contravention of provisions like S. 220 of the, Act, and that the question of his subordination to any of its office bearers is of no consequence. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants was set aside. That decision has been followed by this Court in Group Village panchayat, Harlapur v. Ramangouda Ananthagouda (1971) 1 Mys. L. J. 364. In that case a, writ petition had been filed by the Chairman of the Village Panchayat. It was alleged that the Panchayat by its resolution had empowered the chairman to institute the writ proceedings. It was held that the writ petition being a civil proceeding, it was only the Secretary who could institute the said proceedings and that the Chairman could not institute the proceedings even if he is empowered by a resolution of the Panchayat. ( 3 ) UNDER S. 80 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards act, 1959, it is provided that every panchayat shall have a Secretary whp shall be appointed by the Commissioner in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed and that the qualifications, powers, duties, remuneration and conditions of service of such Secretary shall be such as may be prescribed, but subject to the provisions and rules made under the proviso to Art 309 of the Constitution. In the present case the Village Panchayat has been sued represented by its Chairman. In the present case the Village Panchayat has been sued represented by its Chairman. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Sri. Bhagwan appearing for the plaintiff-respondent that the phrase and to conduct the proceedings on its behalf under the orders of the Panchayat in Rule 16 refers to the power of the Secretary to file complaints and suits on behalf of the Panchayat and that the secretary is thereby empowered only to conduct the criminal proceedings in which complaints have been filed by the Secretary and to conduct the suits on behalf of the Panchayat which have been filed by the Secretary on its behalf. It is his contention that the rule has no reference to the defence of a suit filed against the Panchayat. If that was the intention of the rule making authority it was not necessary to insert the above phrase in Rule 16. Such an interpretation would amount to holding that the above said part of the rule is redundant. One of the primary rules of construction of statutes is that no part of it shall be assumed to be redundant and effect must be given to every part of the statutory provision. Hence, it must be held that Rule 16 contemplates that the Secretary shall have power to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the Panchayat under its orders in complaints and suits filed against the Panchayat. The principle adopted in the interpretation of the first part of the rule relating to filing of complaints and suits on behalf of the Panchayat as laid down in the above said decisions must also govern the interpretation of the second part of the rule. Hence, under Rule 16 it is only the Secretary whq can represent the village Panchayat in a suit filed against the Village Panchayat. The present suit, therefore, must be held to be not maintainable as against the village Panchayat, the 1st defendant. ( 5 ) THIS appeal is, therefore allowed and the decree of the lower appellate Court is modified to the extent that the suit as against the 1st defendant stands dismissed. Since this ground was not urged in the Courts below, the parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .