JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, M. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 8, 1969, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 2. The suit was filed under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by Sankatha Prasad Pande, a member of the L.M.C., who claimed to do so on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The suit was decree by the trial court which overruled the objection raised by the defendants that plaintiff had no authority to file it. 3. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner has taken a different view. He has held that no authority vested in the Assistant Collector to permit filing of the suit on behalf of the Gaon Sabha by a member of the L.M.C. as was done in this case. Paragraphs 122 and 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual were held to show that only the Chairman could sign a plaint on behalf of the L.M.C. and in his absence a member of the Committee could perform the function of the Chairman only if authorised by the latter to do so. Failing this authority, the Committee itself could authorise a member by passing a resolution. Since Sankartha Prasad Pande had not been authorised by the Chairman of the L.M.C. the suit was held not to have been filed by the Gaon Sabha and was, therefore, dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that Section 122-A(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act permits the Chairman or any other office bearer or Member of the L.M.C. to sign for or on behalf of the L.M.C., any document and to do all other things for the conduct and prosecution of suits and other proceedings. He has argued that the authority given by law under the above section to sign any document also includes an authority to initiate litigation by a plaint on behalf of the L.M.C. 5. The above interpretation cannot be accepted. The authority to sign a document must be distinguished from the authority to take a decision to embark upon a course of litigation. The above interpretation cannot be accepted. The authority to sign a document must be distinguished from the authority to take a decision to embark upon a course of litigation. In other words, once a duly authorised decision has been taken to file a particular suit it is then and only then that the provisions of the sub-section can come into effect and the Chairman or any other office bearer or Member of the L.M.C. would be entitled to sign documents furtherance of the earlier decision to file the suit. 6. The above interpretation is further re-enforced by the specific provisions of paragraph 128 of the Gaon Samaj Manual which says that the conduct of Gaon Sabha litigation is not dependent upon the individual discretion of the Chairman of the L.M.C. but shall be a matter of resolution of the Committee as a whole. Only in urgent cases can the Chairman take action on his own but he is expected to seek ratification by the Committee in the very next meeting subsequently. 7. It is, therefore, clear that Sankatha Prasad Pande acted without authority in filing the present suit. The appeal stands dismissed.