JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order of Sri S.K. Ahmed, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, dated February 17, 1973 in appeal No. 5 of 1971 against the judgment and decree dated Sept. 2, 1971 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahoba, in Case No. 169/12/26 of 1967 under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The revisionist, Smt. Brij Rani, filed a suit under Section 202, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming that she was a Bhumidhar of the land in suit and being a widow she had let out the land to Chandi and Balli, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. She now wanted to bring the land under her personal cultivation, but the opposite parties refused to give up possession. Chandi and Balli contested the suit claiming that they themselves were Sirdars of the land in suit that Smt. Brij Rani had no title whatsoever, and that after the death of her former husband Desh Raj, she had remarried to one Dhandhu. The trial court decreed the suit and ordered the ejectment of the opposite parties. Chandi and Balli. The lower appellate Court however, in appeal, set aside the trial court's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision after recording a finding on the following issue- "Whether any notice under Section 106 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act has been given by the plaintiff and, if so, its effect?" 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is bad in law, and that the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner is vitiated because he did not consider the case on merits at all. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has, on the order hand, challenged these grounds. 5. I may first of all consider whether a notice under Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was necessary in the present case. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has, on the order hand, challenged these grounds. 5. I may first of all consider whether a notice under Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was necessary in the present case. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that this is not at all necessary, and has referred to Sheo Pujan v. Gram Sabha, 1964 A.L.J. 183, where a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has observed as below- "Where in a suit for declaration and injunction the Gaon Sabha was impleaded incidentally as a defendant because of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act, held that no notice under Section 106 necessary as Section 106 is confined to suits instituted against the Gaon Sabha or its members or officers for acts done in their official capacity under the Act itself." The learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has referred to Sunder Lal v. Ram Prakash, etc., 1973 R.D. 296, where a learned single Member of this Court had observed as follows:- "In proceedings under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, the Goan Sabha is a necessary party. It was arrayed as such by the plaintiff respondent in the present suit. The summons were issued to the Gaon Sabha to appear in the case, but the plaintiff-respondent never stated in the plaint that he had given the statutory notice to the Gaon Sabha as required by Section 106 of the Panchayat Raj Act and the law is well settled that unless this is stated in the plaint no Court shall take cognizance of such a suit." For the facility of reference, Section 106 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act may be reproduced here- "106. Suits against Goan Sabhas, Goan Panchayats, their officers or the officers and servants of Nyaya Panchayats- (1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against a Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat (or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or against a member or officer or servant thereof or of Nyaya Panchayat) or against any person acting under the direction of any of these bodies or persons for anything done or purporting to have been done in official capacity under this Act, until the expiration of 2 months next after notice in writing has been, in the case of Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat, delivered in or left at the office of the Gaon Panchayat concerned and in the case of a member, officer or servant of any person acting under his direction or the direction of the Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat delivered to him or left a this office or place of abode, explicitly stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation, if any, claimed and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2) No action such as is described in sub-section(1) shall be commenced otherwise than within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action." A careful reading of this section will make it clear that it has no relevance whatsoever to any suits or proceedings under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. This sections would come into paly only where any act of omission or commission on the part of any office bearer of the Gaon Panchayat is questioned. Such is not the case in a suit under Section 202, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which is only a matter of dispute between two private parties. I would, therefore, hold that the learned Additional Commissioner has taken an erroneous view of law in remanding the case for determination of the question whether or not any notice under Section 106, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act had been given. 6. A number of other grounds relating to the merits of the case have also been raised in the revision petition. It would however, be proper that the merits of the case are first considered in first appeal before any verdict is recorded by this Court of second appeal. 6. A number of other grounds relating to the merits of the case have also been raised in the revision petition. It would however, be proper that the merits of the case are first considered in first appeal before any verdict is recorded by this Court of second appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner has failed to consider the merits of the case as he was led astray under a mistaken nation that a notice under Section 106, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was necessary. I would, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that he shall proceed to hear and decide the first appeal on merits.