JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. The petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 09.02.2017, passed by the Civil Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), whereby petitioner's application dated 29.03.2016, seeking decision of issue No. 3 before evidence, has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat, wherein the petitioner had been impleaded as a party, subsequently. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved the subject application, inter alia, raising objection regarding maintainability of the suit in wake of failure to issue notice under Section 109 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1996. 4. After hearing the arguments of the rival parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application, inter alia, observing that the identical objection raised by the Gram Panchayat had already been rejected and that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the maintainability of the suit on account of failure of issuing notice under Section 109 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1996. 5. 5. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Trial Court, which reads as under:— ^^mHk; i{kdkjku }kjk izLrqr rF;ksa] rdksZ ij euu fd;k x;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk lqlaxr fof/k dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA gLrxr izdj.k esa oknh uksikjke }kjk izkFkhZ@izfroknhx.k ds vfrfjDr xzke iapk;r vjM+dh dks Hkh izfroknh laŒ 1 cuk;k x;k gSA oknh }kjk eq[;r;k vuqrks"k xzke iapk;r ds fo:} gh pkgk x;k gSA gLrxr izkFkZuk i= xzke iapk;r }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA U;k;ky; dk fouez er gS fd xzke iapk;r dks uksfVl fn;k x;k vFkok ugha] bl ckcr vk{ksi djus dk vf/kdkj dsoy xzke iapk;r dks gh gSA xzke iapk;r }kjk vius bl vf/kdkj dks R;Dr Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% U;k;ky; dk fouez er gS fd izkFkhZx.k }kjk bl izkFkZuk i= dks is'k fd;k tkuk fof/k dh n`f"V ls mfpr ugha gSA blls iwoZ Hkh izkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 109 iapk;r vf/kfu;e esa is'k fd;k x;k Fkk] tks nks lkS :i;s dh dher ij [kkfjt Qjek;k x;kA tgka rd izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2012 ¼2½ MhŒ,uŒtsŒ ¼jktLFkku½ 1153 cynsoflag cuke Jherh xqMMh nsoh o vU; dk iz'u gS] U;k;ky; dk fouez er gS fd bl izdj.k esa uksfVl ds laca/k esa vk{ksi HkwriwoZ ljiap }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk] tcfd gLrxr izkFkZuk i= esa vk{ksi izkbZosV ikVhZ }kjk fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 14 fu;e 2 lhŒihŒlhŒ o /kkjk 151 lhŒihŒlhŒ 500@& :i;s ¼ikap lkS :i;s½ dh dher ij vLohdkj fd;k tkdj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA** 6. Mr. Shravan Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court, submitted that the Court below has erred in not considering the objection regarding maintainability of the suit raised by the petitioner, for want of statutory notice. 7. Having considered the submission of Mr. Shravan Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner neither has locus standi to raise the objection regarding maintainability of the suit nor has he any cause of action to prefer the present writ petition. 7. Having considered the submission of Mr. Shravan Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner neither has locus standi to raise the objection regarding maintainability of the suit nor has he any cause of action to prefer the present writ petition. Such view is based on earlier judgment dated 26.10.2017, rendered in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 6256/2017 titled as “Nirmal Kumar Jain v. Suresh Chandra Jain, wherein this Court in identical circumstances has held as infra:— “Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the order impugned, this Court accepts the argument advanced by Mr. Saruparia that the petitioner - private defendant cannot maintain the present writ petition. If the plaintiff's notice was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 98(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959, the petitioner being a co-defendant cannot raise any grievance against the same, more particularly in extant factual backdrop, when the order dated 10.05.2015 qua the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, has attained finality. Since the UIT has not laid any challenge to the order purportedly passed against it, the petitioner cannot raise grievance. The fact that by the very same orders, petitioners separate application has also been rejected, would not alter the position of law, as the petitioner has no locus, as stated above. The petitioner cannot be said to be a party concerned, much less a party aggrieved.” 8. Following the judgment quoted above, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner is rejected.