Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 267 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, filed I. A. No. 660 of 1981 for impleading the Karungal Town Panchayat as the second defendant in the suit. This was objected to by the defendant in the suit who is the Executive Officer of the Karungal Town Panchayat on the ground that notice under section 170 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (XXXV of 1958) had not been given before the institution of the suit and as such the second defendant cannot be impleaded. The District Munsif holding that a notice under section 170 of the said Act ought to have been given before instituting the suit dismissed the application. It is as against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff. 2. Section 170 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act deals with notice of action against Panchayat, etc. This, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner can be invoked only in cases where compensation is claimed against the Panchayat, Mr. Selvaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, correctly brougtht to my notice the decision reported in Panchayat Union Council v. C. Thirupathy1, wherein it has been held that section 170 will be applicable only in cases where compensation is claimed against the Panchayat. It is also clear from section 173 which reads at follows: "Liability of the President executive authority and members for loss, waste or misapplication of property: — (1) The President, executive authority and every member of a Panchayat and the chairman, commissioner and every member of a Panchayat Union Council shall be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other propery owned by or vested in the Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council if such loss, waste or misapplication is a direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct; and a suit for compensation may be instituted against him in any Court of competent jurisdiction by the Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council with the previous sanction of the Inspector. (2) Every such suit shall be commenced within three years after the date on which the cause of action arose”. (2) Every such suit shall be commenced within three years after the date on which the cause of action arose”. That the notice contemplated under section 170 is applicable to cases wherein compensation is claimed against the Panchayat; there cannot be an, dispute with regard to this proposition of law, any hence it is clear that the order passed by the Court below is erroneous. In these circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed, with the result, the petition to implead the second respondent is ordered as prayed for. There will be no order as to costs. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the end of March, 1982.