Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision Is directed against the order dated 18-10-2004, passed in Civi1 suit No. 119 of 2001, by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Udham Singh Nagar, by which issue No. 7 has been decided in favour of the defendant NO.3. The said Issue relates to the following point : Whether, the suit is barred by Section 88 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 ? Section 88(2) of said Act, reads as under : "88. Suits and legal proceedings. (1) . (2) No suit shall be instituted against the Board, the Adhyaksh, the Housing Commissioner, the Tribunal, the prescribed authority or any member, officer or servant of the Board, in respect of any act done or purported or intended to be done under this Act or any rule or regulation until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of, the Board, the Adhyaksh, the Housing Commissioner, the Tribunal, the prescribed authority, or such officer or servant, as the case may be stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. 3. Aforesaid Section clearly bars institution of suit against the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad or its officer until expiration of two months notice in writing. The said provision is silent as to the pending suits. Here, defendant No.3 has been impleaded in a pending suit. It is nowhere provided that even in the pending cases notice would be required to be given under aforesaid Section. In the opinion of this Court. where a party is impleaded under orders of the court under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. that too within the time specified in the order like in the present one in which only two days time was allowed if the statutory notice is not given it cannot be said that the suit is bad for want of notice. The most significant fact in this case is this the trial court vide its order dated 15-07-2004 passed on issue Nos.2 and 3 directed the plaintiff to implead U.P. Avas .Evam Vikas Parishad within a period of two days. The most significant fact in this case is this the trial court vide its order dated 15-07-2004 passed on issue Nos.2 and 3 directed the plaintiff to implead U.P. Avas .Evam Vikas Parishad within a period of two days. In the circumstances plaintiff has no opinion but to implead the Parishad without serving any notice. Though, no relief has been sought by the plaintiff against the Parishad, nor any cause of action has been- alleged, however, the plaintiff was bound to comply the direction contained in court's order dated 15-07-2004. On one hand, the trial court directed the plaintiff on 15-07-2004 to implead the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad within two days while, on the other hand, on 18-102004 (vide impugned order) it has given finding that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 88 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Ahiniyam, 1965. 4. In the circumstances, and for the reasons as discussed above, the finding on issue No.7 passed on 18-10-2004 is erroneous in law and it is a case of material irregularity / illegality in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the court. As such, the impugned finding is liable to be set aside. The revision is allowed. Finding / order dated 18-10-2004 passed on issue No.7 is set aside. The issue No.7 shall stand decided in negative for the reasons as discussed above.