JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. -This second appeal by the City Board of Mathura is directed against the decree dated 9th May, 1972 passed by the lower appellate court restraining the appellant from storing rubbish, refuse and night-soil at or on any portion of the land shown by the letters DCEF in the map annexed to the plaint. 2. Although notice of the appeal appears to have been duly served on the plaintiff respondents, none of them appeared at the hearing of the appeal. 3. Mr. R. P. Goel, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was bad for want of a notice under Section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act; that the provisions of sub-section (4) thereof did not save the suit from the operation of sub-section (1) of Section 326 of the Act; and that being so the suit could not have been decreed by the lower appellate court, as no notice under sub-section (1) of Section 326 had been served by the plaintiff-respondents before the institution of the suit. 4. The lower appellate court has dealt with this question in para. 16 of its judgment. It has taken the view that since the suit was a suit for injunction sub-sec. (4) of Section 326 of the Act saved it from the requirement of serving a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 326. Mr. Goel placed before me a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ahmad Raza v. Municipal Board, Allahabad ( AIR 1952 All 711 ) paras. 20 and 21, at pages 713-714, and contended that the delay of two months occasioned by the service of a notice under Section 326 (1) of the Act before the institution of the suit in this case was not one as could be said to have resulted in defeating the object of the suit. The object of the suit was to prevent the appellant Municipal Board from collecting rubbish at the place DCEF on the plaint map-in a sort of cemented receptacle, the construction of which had already been started by it before the suit was instituted. In case the construction of the receptacle which was made of brick and mortar had already been completed before the suit it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have also sued for the removal of the receptacle. That was not one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. In case the construction of the receptacle which was made of brick and mortar had already been completed before the suit it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have also sued for the removal of the receptacle. That was not one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. At any rate the delay of two months in asking for the removal of the receptacle would not have defeated the object of the suit. On the other hand, however, the other only object of the suit was to prevent the defendant Municipal Board from collecting refuse in that receptacle which was said to be obnoxious to the plaintiffs, then in that case the postponement of the institution of the suit by two months would have only subjected the plaintiffs to suffer the nuisance for a short time till they were able to obtain an injunction. At any rate the plaintiffs could have sought compensation for the apprehended injury, and it cannot be said that the injury would have become irremediable if the plaintiffs had to wait for two months before the institution of the suit. It must, therefore, be held that the suit was barred by Section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act on account of non-service of a notice under sub-sec. thereof. 5. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside. The plaintiff-respondents suit shall stand dismissed with costs in the two courts below, but there will be no order as to costs in this Court as the plaintiff-respondents are unrepresented.