ORDER Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2001 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/96 by which judgment and decree passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.75-A/1992 dated 24.11.1995 was affirmed. Both the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled for a permanent lease of Plot No. 13 (15 x 30 sq.ft) situated at Laxmiganj, Gwalior and the defendants are not entitled to allot the land or cancel the lease of plaintiff, if plaintiff deposits lease rent after following due procedure. Defendant was further restrained by perpetual injunction that it shall not illegally cancel temporary allotment of the plaintiff and shall not dispossess the plaintiff without due procedure of law. 2. This appeal was admitted on 8.5.2001, on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable without issuing notice under Section 67 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972? (ii) Whether the contract between the Mandi and the defendant was valid u/s 25 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam ? 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that he is pressing this appeal in so far as it relates to substantial question of law No. 1. In view of the aforesaid, the parties are heard on the substantial question of law No. 1. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff before expiry of statutory period of notice issued under section 67 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'). No permission was granted by the trial Court :o the plaintiff to institute the suit before expiry of period of two months from the date of delivery of the notice. It is submitted that the suit itself was not maintainable. Reliance is placed to a judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Bhagwandas Goyal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Datia 1992 M.P.L.J. 998. Stating aforesaid, it is submitted that on this ground, this appeal may be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below may be set aside. 4. Reliance is placed to a judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Bhagwandas Goyal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Datia 1992 M.P.L.J. 998. Stating aforesaid, it is submitted that on this ground, this appeal may be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent/plaintiff supported the judgment and decree on the ground that on 25.7.1990 the trial Court accorded permission to the plaintiff to file a suit and in view of permission accorded by the trial court, the plaintiff rightly instituted the suit before expiry of period two months in the alterative, it is submitted by the appellant that even if this suit is found not maintainable then the appellant, be permitted to institute a fresh suit claiming reliefs on merits of the case and the time spent in the proceedings of present suit may be sought to be exclude under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by filing an application in this regard. Learned counsel appearing for appellant opposed the aforesaid contention. 5. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, record, Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below perused. 6. Factual position in this case is that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the appellant on 25.07.1990. The reliefs as prayed by the plaintiff in the suit were as under:- (a) That it be declared that the plaintiff was entitled to get the permanent lease of disputed plot on the basis of first priority. (b) That defendant was not entitled to cancel the lease or to allot the said plot to any other person. (c) That defendant be restrained by perpetual injunction that it shall neither cancel the temporary lease of the plot nor plaintiff be evicted forcibly. 7. In para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that a notice has been issued to the defendant on 25.7.1990 for filing of the suit by registered post. (c) That defendant be restrained by perpetual injunction that it shall neither cancel the temporary lease of the plot nor plaintiff be evicted forcibly. 7. In para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that a notice has been issued to the defendant on 25.7.1990 for filing of the suit by registered post. The order-sheet dated 25.7.1990 reflects that the suit was filed, on the same day, along with three applications, one application under Section 151 CPC for urgent hearing of the suit which was registered as I.A. No. l, second application under Order 39 rule 3 CPC for issuance of exparte temporary injunction order which was registered as I.A. No. 2 and third application I.A.No.3 was filed under Order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC. The trial Court on 25.7.1990 accepted I.A. No.1 and the case was heard on the same day. So far as I.A.No.2, by which the plaintiff sought exparte temporary injunction order is concerned, it was rejected on the same day. However, on I.A.No.3 a notice was issued to the other side. 8. From the perusal of the application, I.A.No. 1, 2 and 3, it is apparent that no permission was sought by the plaintiff to file a suit before expiry of period of two months from the date of issuance of the notice under Section 67 of the Adhiniyam. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, legal provision as contained in section 67 of the Adhiniyam may be looked into, which read thus :- 67. Bar of suit in absence of notice.- No suit shall be instituted against the Board or any market committee, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing stating the cause of action, name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the relief which he claims has been delivered or left at its office. Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within six months from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action. Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within six months from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action. Aforesaid provision is very specific and cast a bar to institute a suit against the Board or any market committee until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing, stating the cause of action, name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the relief which he claims has been delivered or left at the office of concerned Krishi Upaj Mandi. The aforesaid provision further provides that every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within six months from the date of the accrual of cause of action. 9. Aforesaid provision provides two mandatory criteria. First, a notice of two months under section 67 of the Adhiniyam is necessary before filing of the suit and second, the suit ought to have been filed within six months from the date of accrual of cause of action. 10. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the provision of section 67 of the Adhiniyam in Bhagwandas Goyal (supra) held thus:- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendant should not have been permitted to take shelter behind the plea under S.67 of the Adhiniyam. Firstly, because it is a technical plea and secondly, because the defendant/respondent having refuted the claim of the plaintiff within the period of 2 months it would have served no purpose in waiting for a period of 2 months and then filing the suit. Reliance was placed on Mahabir Kishore Vs. State of M.P. 1990 JLJ 1 (SC) and State of M.P. Vs. Ramrao Krishnarao Paliskar 1990 JLJ 315 (D.B.) in both the decisions, the Apex Court and this Court have held that State should not rely on technical plea of limitation to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizens. It is for the defendant/respondent to read and act on the law so laid down while learning moral therefrom. Ramrao Krishnarao Paliskar 1990 JLJ 315 (D.B.) in both the decisions, the Apex Court and this Court have held that State should not rely on technical plea of limitation to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizens. It is for the defendant/respondent to read and act on the law so laid down while learning moral therefrom. However, two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not help him in the present case for the simple reason that S.67 of the Adhiniyam is mandatory in character and obliges and Court to hold the suit not maintainable, if it is filed before expiry of statutory period of two months as is the law laid down in Bihari Chowdhary's case ( AIR 1984 SC 1043 ). 11. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Bhagwandas Goyal (supra), there is no doubt that provisions as contained in Section 67 of the Adhiniyam are mandatory in nature and without following aforesaid provisions, the suit could not have been instituted. The position could have been different, if because of the emergency, the plaintiff could have sought permission from the trial Court for instituting a civil suit before expiry of statutory period of two months. In this case, as stated hereinabove, neither such application was filed nor any such permission was accorded by the trial Court. 12. From the perusal of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, it appears that in para 11 of the judgment, the trial Court recorded a finding that on 25.7.1990, such permission was accorded to the plaintiff, but as stated hereinabove, this is factually incorrect and the trial Court decided Issue No.5(a) on incorrect factual position. Similarly, the appellate Court in para 14 of the judgment affirmed the aforesaid finding and it appears that both the courts below without considering record and factual position recorded these findings which are not sustainable under the law. In view of aforesaid, the findings recorded by the courts below in respect of legal objection of the appellant, of filling of the suit before expiry of period of two months and answer of it that a permission was accorded, are not sustainable under the law and are hereby set aside. 13. In view of aforesaid, the findings recorded by the courts below in respect of legal objection of the appellant, of filling of the suit before expiry of period of two months and answer of it that a permission was accorded, are not sustainable under the law and are hereby set aside. 13. At this stage learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that as plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed because of the aforesaid legal position, plaintiff be permitted to file a fresh suit and in this regard he may be permitted to institute a fresh suit with an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking exclusion of the period spent in the present suit. It is further submitted by Shri Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 that for a period of two months, status quo as on today in respect of suit plot be directed to be maintained. Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing for appellant opposed the aforesaid contention, but looking to the fact that suit was filed with an application seeking temporary injunction and the trial Court ultimately granted perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff/ respondent, the suit was decreed and the appeal was dismissed, such permission deserves to be granted. The document Ex. P-2 is also on record, which shows that temporary lease was granted in favour of plaintiff/ respondent. Considering these factual aspects and in the interest of justice, prayer made by respondent no.1 is allowed. While dismissing the suit as premature because of non-compliance of section 67 of the Adhiniyam, it is directed that plaintiff shall be entitled to institute a fresh suit. In the said suit plaintiff may seek exclusion of the period in the present suit by filing an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, appellant herein shall be entitled to contest the suit and aforesaid application in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid liberty, this appeal is allowed. The suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.