JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The present Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-defendant in Civil Original Suit No.42/2008 "Kundan Mal v. Ramesh Kumar" against the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 by which, the learned Trial Court of Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu, while deciding preliminary issue Nos. 6 and 7, has held that before instituting a suit against the Municipality, prior notice of two months, as required under Section 271 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 ('the Act of 1959') is not necessary, as the said provision is directory in nature. 2. The private defendant and not the concerned Municipal Council in the present suit has filed the present revision petition aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.05.2015. 3. 2. The private defendant and not the concerned Municipal Council in the present suit has filed the present revision petition aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.05.2015. 3. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959 dh /kkjk 271 ds vUrxZr uxjikfydk ds fo:) nkok nk;jh ds iwoZ nks ekg dk vfxze uksfVl fn;k tkuk vko';d gSA mDr /kkjk dh mi&/kkjk ( 3 ) ds vUrxZr dsoy mUgha ekeyksa esa uksfVl dh NwV nh xbZ gS ftu ekeyksa esa ek= LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS rFkk uksfVl nsus ls okn ;k dk;Zokgh dk mn~ns'; lekIr gksus dh laHkkouk gSA gLrxr ekeys esa ;fn okni= dk voyksdu djsa rks oknh }kjk u dsoy LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS oju~ izfrdwy dCts ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a dks oknxzLr Hkwfe dk Lokeh ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k Hkh pkgk x;k gS rFkk oknh vius okn&i= esa bl Hkwfe dks uxjikfydk esa vkcknh Hkwfe ntZ gksuk dFku djds vk;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ?kks"k.kk dk okn ykus ds iwoZ oknh ds ikVZ ij ;g vko';d Fkk fd og uxjikfydk dks nks ekg dk vfxze uksfVl nsdj okn izLrqr djrkA ijUrq U;k; n'"VkUr uxj fuxe dksVk o vU; cuke Nxuyky] 2011 ( 1 ) Mh0,u0ts0 ( jkt0 ) 333] ls lacaf/kr ekeys esa jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 273 dks uksfVl ugha nsus dks dsoy ,d ,slh izfdz;kRed deh ekuk gS tks {ks=kf/kdkj ds ekeys dh rg rd ugha tkrhA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl rF; ds ckotwn fd oknh }kjk nkok nk;jh ls iwoZ uxjikfydk dks /kkjk 271 jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k] ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks ?kks"k.kkRed vuqrks"k] ;fn og vU;Fkk vf/kdkjh gS] ls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% fook|d la[;k 7 rn~uqlkj izfroknh ds fo:) r; fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k mijksDr foospuk/khu fook|d la[;k 3 dk fu.kZ; fo:) oknh o fook|d la[;k 7 dk fu.kZ; fo:) izfroknh mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA pwafd oknh }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe dks vkcknh Hkwfe crkrs gq, ml ij eq[kkyQkuk dCts ds vk/kkj ij vius nkos esa ?kks"k.kk o LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k Hkh pkgk x;k gS ftlds laca/k esa fook|d la[;k ,d fufeZr gSA blfy, bl rF; ds ckotwn fd oknh dks okn esa mi[k.M vf/kdkj lqtkux<+ }kjk ikfjr fjlhojh fu;qfDr ds vkns'k fnukad 19-4-2008 dks pqukSrh nsus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS] nkok oknh [kkfjt ;ksX; ugha gSA Sd/- ( usiky flag ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k lqtkux<+] ftyk&pq: vkns'k vkt fnukad 26-5-2015 dks esjs }kjk fy[kk;k tkdj [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;k rFkk gLrk{kfjr] eqnzkafdr o fnukafdr fd;k x;kA Sd/- ( usikyflag ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k lqtkux<+] ftyk&pq: Sd/- 4. Having heard the learned counsel, Mr. Harish Purohit, appearing for the petitioner-Ramesh Kumar and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is satisfied that the grievance, if any, against the impugned order dated 26.05.2015, can be raised only by the Municipality concerned to whom the notice, as required under Section 271 of the Act of 1959 was not given to the Municipality concerned, therefore, it is the noticee, who can be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 and not the private defendant, the petitioner-Ramesh Kumar in the present revision petitioner and, therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable at the instance of the private defendant and the same is misconceived. In view of this, the present revision petition is thus found to be devoid of any merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Revision Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant Ramesh Kumar S/o Chandan Mal stands dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below and to the parties concerned forthwith.Revision dismissed. *******