PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THE opponent filed a suit against the applicant under Sec. 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1904 (II of 1906) hereinafter referred to as the Act, for permanent injunction restraining the applicant from obstructing the opponent from using way to go to his farm. ( 2 ) THE short grievance of Mr. B. J. Jadeja, learned Advocate for the patitioner is that the procedure as prescribed under Sec. 14 of the Act has not been followed and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice On a plain reading of Sec. 14 of the Act and upon going through the notice for local inspection, the submission of Mr. Jadeja would hold good. Section 14 reads as under :"14. (1) Where a plaint is admisssble, the Mamlatdar shall receive and file it. He shall then fix a convenient day and place for the trial of the case, and shall issue, at the expense of the plaintiff, notice in the form of Schedule-A to the defendant. He shall then require the plaintiff to appear with his documents, if any, and witnesses, if any, on the day and at the place fixed. (2) The date to be fixed for the trial of the case shall not be earlier than ten days, nor later than fifteen days, from the day on which the notice is issued, except for sufficient reason to be recorded in writing by the Mamlatdar with his own hand. (3) The place to be fixed for the trial of the case may be in the Mamlatdars office or at or near the scene of dispute, or at any other spot that the Mamlatdar considers convenient to the parties. " ( 3 ) IT is clear from the reading of the above provision that the Mamlatdar is empowered to fix the place of trial and notice of fixation of such place of trial has to be given to parties. ( 4 ) THE notice which has been issued by the learned Mamlatdar does not show even impliedly that at the place of inspection he would conduct the trial, whereas as a matter of fact, he conducted the trial at the place of inspection. That is clear from the reading of the judgment of both the authorities below. It is surprising how the learned Deputy Collector has not applied his mind to this aspect of the case. That is clear from the reading of the judgment of both the authorities below. It is surprising how the learned Deputy Collector has not applied his mind to this aspect of the case. It is admitted fact that the advocate for the defendant did not remain present and it has been submitted that had it been notified he would have also conducted the trial, attended to the recording of evidence and cross-examined the witnesses. Thus, it is clear that the learned Mamlatdar has not followed the procedure as prescribed by law in conducting the trial and it is also clear that that has caused prejudice to the defendant-applicant. The result is that this revision application shall have to be allowed. Following order is, therefore, passed: the orders passed by the authorities below rendered on date 11-7-1988 by the learned Mamlatdar in Mamlatdar Court Case No. 1 of 1985-86 and order dated 3-8-1988 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra in Revision Case No. 1 of 1987-88 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Mamlatdar to proceed with the trial afresh in accordance with law. However, it would be open to him to rely upon the report only regarding local inspection. In case he relies upon any of the statements, the witnesses shall be offered for cross-examination before doing so. The trial shall be expeditiously held in top priority. ( 5 ) RULE made absolute accordingly with no order as cost. .