ORDER R. M. Sahai, J. -This petition is directed against orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 dismissing suit filed by petitioners under Section 198 (4) as it stood in 1970, on the ground that it was barred by time, that no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was filed the allotment made in favour of the petitioners was in excess of the area permitted to be allotted to the landless persons under Z. A. Act. 2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the grounds on which suit has been dismissed is sound in law. According to him the only requirement under Section 80, of C. P. C. is to serve a notice on the State Government or public functionary. The argument appears to be correct as there is no requirement under Section 80 of the C. P. C. that a notice issued to party should be filed along with plaint. It has not been found by any of the courts that notice issued under Section 80 was not served on the State Government or Gaon Sabha. In absence of any finding on this aspect suit cannot be held to be bad for want of notice. 3. In respect of finding on question of limitation learned counsel urged that the leases granted in petitioners favour were cancelled on 12th August, 1968 whereas they came to know of it in 1970 and suit filed by them on 22nd July, 1970 was within six months from the date of the knowledge of cancellation of the lease. The finding of the Trial Court on this question is that the cancellation orders were passed on 12th December, 1968 and the suit was instituted on 22nd July, 1970. Therefore, it was not within time. It is this finding which has been confirmed by Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue. In recording this finding trial court obviously omitted to consider limitation provided for filing of the suit under Section 198 (4). In Appendix 3 Serial No. 24-A of Z. A. Rules it has been provided that suit to establish any right and claim in the land allotted under sub-section (1) of Section 194 can be filed when the order of ejectment becomes known to the plaintiff. In Appendix 3 Serial No. 24-A of Z. A. Rules it has been provided that suit to establish any right and claim in the land allotted under sub-section (1) of Section 194 can be filed when the order of ejectment becomes known to the plaintiff. What was to be found therefore was whether petitioners had come to know of the ejectment in 1968 or they came to know of it within six months prior to filing of the suit. There is no such finding by any of the authorities. It appears they were labouring under impression that limitation of six months is to be counted from the date when leases were cancelled. In doing so they committed manifest error of law. 4. The last submission that the area allotted to the petitioners did not exceed maximum provided in Z. A. Act also appears to be correct. The law as it then stood provided: "that the total area allotted to a tenure-holder should not have exceeded 6 acres if taken" together along with an area held by him. Even in case of landless agricultural labourers it was provided that the allotment should not be less than 3 acres of land but not more than 6 acres." There is no clear finding by any of the authorities that the allotment in favour of the petitioners was more than 6 acres. In counter affidavit it has been stated that petitioner No. 1 was allotted 3 acres, petitioner No. 2 was .allotted 6 acres, petitioner No. 3 along with one Sofia was allotted 9.30 acres, petitioner No. 4 was allotted 6 acres. It shall be seen that allotment to petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 did not contravene the provisions of Section 198. It is not clear whether allotment to opposite party No. 3 was to two persons and if so then it was less than 6 acres. As suit has been dismissed on ground of limitation for want of notice under Section 80 and these grounds have not been found to be well founded, it would be expedient to direct the trial court to decide the case on merit in accordance with law. 5. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are quashed. Respondent No. 5 is further direct-decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. 5. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are quashed. Respondent No. 5 is further direct-decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be/entitled to their costs.