Background: The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of Desarda’s no-mesh repair in comparison to Lichtenstein’s tension -free mesh repair in treatment of primary inguinal hernia. Methods: a prospective study of 80 patients suffering from unilateral primary inguinal hernia who underwent elective operation for hernia repair. The patients were of both males and females their age ranged from 20 - 60 years. They were divided into two groups (A and B). Group A: 40 patients were subjected to Desarda’s no mesh repair. Group B: 40 patients were subjected to Lichtenstein’s tension free mesh repair. The data were collected within one year including sociodemograghic data, general and local examination, co-morbidities, type and duration of inguinal hernia, type of operation, intra- and post -operative parameters, hospital stay and recurrence. Results: Demographic parameters, general examination, duration, type of hernia and co-morbidities in the two intervention arms were similar and shows insignificant difference. 35.5 minutes was the operative time in Desarda’s group and 46 minutes in Lichtenstein’s group which was highly significant (p<0.0001). Post-operative pain, loss of sensation over groin, chronic inguinal pain (>1 month), hospital stay duration and return to normal activity were significantly decreased in Desarda’s group in comparison to Lichtenstein’s group (P<0.0001& P<0.01 & P<0.01 & P<0.0001, P<0.001, respectively). Foreign body sensation and reaction, abdominal wall stiffness and migration of mesh occurs only in Lichtenstein’s group. Hematoma, seroma, scrotal edema, surgical site infection and fever shows insignificant deference between the studied groups but more prevalent in Lichtenstein’s group than Desarda’s group (P=0.49 & P=0.26 & P=0.21 & P=0.09 and P=0.67, respectively). No recurrences of hernia in both studded groups through 1- year follow-up. Conclusion: This study has shown that Desarda’s repair for primary inguinal hernia gives better results when compared with the Lichtenstein’s repair. It is easy to learn and it is physiologically sound. It is associated with less operative duration and mesh related complications. It can be used in a contaminated surgical field, in young individuals and in cases of financial constraints.