JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff Madina Begum had earlier filed Original Suit no. 588/1986 for permanent injunction against the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Thru Secretary and its officers for permanent injunction for the several lands including plot no. 330 situated in village Kohna Jhusi, Allahabad. Said suit no. 588/1986 was dismissed on 12-11-1992. Thereafter the same plaintiff Madina Begum had again filed another original suit no. 1035/1994 Anis Ullah & 8 Others vs. U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad for same defendant. 3. In Original Suit no. 1035/1994 Anis Ullah & 8 Others vs. U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Thru Secretary the trial court had framed issues. Then issues no. 3, 4, and 5 relating to bar of original suit under legal provisions (1. Bar u/s 88(2) of U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Act, 2. Bar u/s 11 CPC, and bar under Order VII Rule-11 CPC) were taken as preliminary issues. After hearing the parties Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)- West, Allahabad had decided the three issues by order dated 09-01-2009 in affirmative and against plaintiffs, and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the plaintiffs had preferred Civil Appeal No. 15/2009 Anis Ullah & 8 Others vs. U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 14-09-2015 of the Additional District Judge, Court No.-15, Allahabad. Against these judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court this Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs of the original suit. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appeal against the judgment dated 12-11-1992 for dismissing the O.S. no. 588/ 1986 is still pending; and said suit was for many plots apart from plot no. 330 so bar of section 11 CPC is not applicable. His second argument was that O.S. No. 1035/ 1094 was filed in eventuality of urgency when there was no time to give 2 month's notice to defendant, hence in the interest of justice suit should be heard on merit. He also contended that in light of his second argument the plaint should not be rejected as barred by any law. For these reasons he contended that second appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that in light of existing judgment of O.S. no. He also contended that in light of his second argument the plaint should not be rejected as barred by any law. For these reasons he contended that second appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that in light of existing judgment of O.S. no. 588/ 1986 relating to same property, the suit no. 1035/1994 is barred by section 11 CPC by principle of res-judicata. He argued that if the fact of pendency of appeal against judgment dated 12-11-1992 for dismissing the O.S. no. 588/ 1986 is considered then the suit no. 1035/1994 is barred and not maintainable section 10 CPC. He contended that two months previous notice is legally mandatory for maintainability of suit against defendant-respondent. In absence of such notice suit is not maintainable and is barred by section 88(2) of U.P. Awas Vikas Awam Parishad Act. Therefore for this reason plaint as well as suit was liable to be rejected under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC. So there is no illegality in impugned order of the two courts below and the second appeal should be dismissed. 6. There are specific provisions under Section 88(2) of U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam,1965 that prior notice is required for filing suit against U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad or its absence. This is mandatory provision. Absence of any such notice in suit against U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad bars the suit against defendant/Parishad. It is admitted fact that no notice has been given to defendant/ respondent before filing of original suit no. 1035 of 1994 against them. Therefore, the finding of trial court as well as first appellate court about non maintainability of original suit is not incorrect. 7. Since original suit is barred by Section 88(2) of the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965, therefore being barred by law, the plaint as well as suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Since the suit is barred by mandatory provisions of law, therefore, finding of this fact by trial court or first appellate court are found correct and are hereby confirmed. There is no other substantial question of law in this matter to be determined in second appeal. Therefore, second appeal is dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this judgement be sent to the court concerned.