JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav 1. This is defendant's second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 9444/- on the basis of a contract for planting trees. The suit was filed with the allegations that the tender of plaintiff was accepted by the defendant and thereafter work order dated 31st August 1984 was issued to the plaintiff for planting trees by 15th September 1982 which was subsequently extended till 16th October, 1984. He planted the trees and then submitted a bill duly verified by the junior engineer which was received in the office of defendant on 26th March, 1985. But the payments were not made. After several reminders on 26th March 1985 he was informed that the bill has been rejected. Thereupon a notice was served on the defendant by handing over the same to the then secretary as well as Vice Chairman of the Mandi Samiti but even then payment was not made hence the suit was filed. 2. The suit was contested by the defendant appellants denying the plaint allegations but admitting that the tenders were accepted and work order was issued for planting 300 trees by 30th September 1984, out of which only 276 trees were planted but the veriety of the trees planted was not the same as agreed upon and ditches were not prepared according to the agreement and the suit was barred by time, as well as section 34 of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam 1964, (for short the Adhiniyam). Trial court decreed the suit. Lower appellate court dismissed the appeal of the defendant appellants. 3. Mr. BD. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the suit was barred by section 34 of the Adhiniyam. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, exabundants cautela provisions of section 34 of the Adhiniyam are set out ; "34. Suit against the committee : (1) no suit shall be instituted against any committee, its Chairman, Vice- Chairman or any member, officer or servant thereof, for anything done, or purported to be done, in its or his official capacity until the expiration of two months from the date of service of a notice in writing, stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the plaintiff and the relief claimed. (2) The notice under sub-section (1) shall, (i) where it is a notice to the Committee, be delivered at its office on any working day or handed over to the Chairman, Vice Chairman of Secretary or shall be sent by registered post: and (ii) in every other case, be delivered to the person concerned, or seat by registered post. (3) No suit referred to in sub section (1) shall unless it is a suit for recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto, be instituted otherwise than within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action." Thus sub-section (2) of section 34 of the Adhiniyam makes it manifest that where a notice was required to be given to the Committee, it shall be delivered at its office on any working day or handed to the Chairman, Vice- Chairman or Secretary. In the present case as discussed in Para 5 of the judgment of the lower appellate court. It has been admitted by the defendants that the tender submitted by the plaintiff was accepted with an agreement, work was entrusted to the plaintiff, some trees were also planted, but the receipt of the notice by registered post was denied. Finding of the trial court is that the defendant appellants were properly served under the certificate of posting. The legislature appears to be conscious in providing that the notice may be handed to the Chairman, Vice- Chairman or the Secretary. The service of notice was a matter of procedure. The provision pertaining to procedure has to be interpreted so as to meet the ends of justice. 5. The cardinal Rule of interpretation is that the sections of a Statute has to be read along with other sections and not in isolation. At the same time all the parts of the section has to be read together What section 34 emphasizes is that whenever a suit has to be filed against a Chairman, a committee or its members etc, a notice in writing has to be served, only after two months thereafter, the suit could be filed. Sub-section (2) of section 34 provides procedure for serving notice. It provides that where notice is to be served on the committee etc, a copy of the notice may be delivered to the Chairman, Vice- Chairman or Member. Sub-section (2) of section 34 provides procedure for serving notice. It provides that where notice is to be served on the committee etc, a copy of the notice may be delivered to the Chairman, Vice- Chairman or Member. The last clause "or shall be sent by registered post" provides a different mode in altenative. it provides that notice can be sent through registered post also, in case it is not delivered to the Chairman or Vice- Chairman or Member. The learned counsel for the appellant urged as notice was not served through registered post hence it cannot deemed to be a service in accordance with section 34 (2). In my opinion word 'or' is disjunctive and word 'and' is conjunctive. The word 'or' does not generally mean 'and' and viceversa. 'And' has a cumulative sense while 'or' does not join together. In certain case however, where the intention requires, the word 'or' can be read as 'and' and viceversa. Unless, however, there are sufficient reasons this shall not be done. The disjunctive word 'or' can be read as 'And' only under special circumstances where the scheme of the Act and object of the legislature would be frustrated, unless it is done. 6. In Metropolitan Board of Works v. Steed, (1881) 8 QBD 44 the question was whether word 'or' in the expression "no new street shall be laid out unless it was forty feet wide or unless such street shall be open at both ends "was disjunctive. As the real sense was that road must be of the width specified and open at both ends and hence 'or' was to be read as 'And'. In Golden Horse Shoes Estate Co. v. Regem, (1911) AC 430, the question was whether word 'and' used under section 15 of Dividend Duties (Western Autralia) Act 1702 "where the dividend is distributed before the duty payable in respect thereof is deducted 'and' paid. To make sense of section 15 and to carry out the object of legislature the word 'And' was to be read as 'or'. 7. In the present case section 34 (2) provides that notices must be served two months before filing of the suit. Two modes of service have been provided. 1st by delivering the copy of notice to the Chairman or Vice- chairman etc. 'or' the notices must be sent by Registered post. 7. In the present case section 34 (2) provides that notices must be served two months before filing of the suit. Two modes of service have been provided. 1st by delivering the copy of notice to the Chairman or Vice- chairman etc. 'or' the notices must be sent by Registered post. If notice has been delivered at the office of the Chairman etc. that is sufficient. Similarly if the notice has been sent under certificate of posting that also can not be said to be illegal as that would be substantial compliance of object of notice. Under section 80 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been provided that no suit instituted against the Government or against a Public officer can be dismissed, in case the details of the plaintiff have been given so as to identify the plaintiff and the cause of action and relief have been specifically stated. The object of notice is to give the public authority or Chairman etc. an opportunity to reconsider the legal position and to make amendments or settle the claim within a period of two months. The notice under section 34 of the Adhiniyam or section 80 CPC should not be scrutinised in a pedantic manner divorced from common sense. The notice must however convey to its recipient sufficient information to enable the defendants to consider the claim. 8. In the present case both the courts below have held that notice has correctly been served on the defendants and it has correctly been held to be sufficient service in view of section 34 of the Act In the last clause under section 34 (2) (ii) of the Adhiniyam, the word 'or' used in the expression 'or sent by registered post' is disjunctive and not conjunctive. I am accordingly of the view that notice sent under certificate of posting, as well as handed over to the Secretary and Vice- Chairman of Mandi samiti has correctly been held to be sufficient under section 34 of the Adhiniyam even thought it was not served through the registered post. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the suit was barred by time Both the courts below have held the suit to be well within time. In my opinion suit having been filed within 6 months from the date of notice, has correctly been held to have been filed within time. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the suit was barred by time Both the courts below have held the suit to be well within time. In my opinion suit having been filed within 6 months from the date of notice, has correctly been held to have been filed within time. Accordingly I do not find any merit in the appeal consequently the appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. Appeal dismissed.