A suit against the Corporation without a notice under section 586 is specifically barred. A suit for declaration and perpetual injunction challenging the annual valuation is barred under section 189 (9) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. A Civil Court cannot entertain a suit cognizance whereof is either expressly or impliedly barred.

( 1 ) A notice dated 4th September, 2003 was issued by the Kolkata Municipal corporation under section 184 (3) and (4) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation act, 1980 proposing annual valuation of premises No. 223, Bidhan Sarani at a sum of Rs. 6,43,210/- with effect from 4th quarter of the Financial Year 1998- 99. By the notice the assessee was notified that he might file objection, if any, to the proposed annual valuation and that the hearing would take place on 14th june, 2004.

( 2 ) ON or about 11th December, 2003, the assessee filed a suit in the City civil Court at Calcutta which was registered as Title Suit No. 1788 of 2003 claiming the following reliefs : (i) The plaintiff is entitled to a Decree for declaration that the purported annual valuation and/or the rise from Rs. 76,290/- to Rs. 6,43,210/- with effect from 4th quarter 1998-1999 in respect of the premises No. 223, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata-700006, P. S. Jorasanko is bad, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and the same is liable to be cancelled and/or delivered up as the same is not tenable in the eye of law. (ii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents, servants, associates, and employees, from giving effect to the purported rise as above and/or take any further steps in aid thereof or any furtherance of the said rights.

( 3 ) AN application for temporary injunction was filed, wherein an ex parte order of ad interim injunction restraining the Corporation from giving effect to the increased valuation until the disposal of the application for temporary injunction was passed on 16th December, 2003.

( 4 ) UPON service of notice about the order of injunction, having been passed by the Trial Court together with a copy of the plaint, the defendant Municipal corporation applied for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) on the ground that the suit appears to be barred by law from the statements made in the plaint. The learned Trial Court not only rejected the application but also issued a sort of declaration coupled with a direction upon the plaintiff to pay at the old rate together with 10 per cent increase. It would be apposite to set out the said direction which reads as follows :"the plaintiff is directed to deposit the tax for the period on the basis of admitted amount of previous annual valuation plus 10% of such valuation, at this stage, in the office of the defendants by the date fixed and to file receipt to that effect before this Court by the date fixed. However, if the defendants do not agree to accept such tax on the basis of such preliminary valuation, then the plaintiff will have no responsibility for depositing any tax in question on the basis of the enhanced valuation till disposal of this suit. "

( 5 ) AS regards merits of the application under Order 7 Rule 11, the learned trial Court has opined as follows:"in the present plaint, the determination of valuation or assessment has not been directly challenged, but it has been pleaded that without servicing notice assessment was done and there was no communication of assessment order and, as such, no scope was given to the plaintiff to file appeal against the assessment order before the Assessment Tribunal and, as such, the order of raising the annual valuation is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. "

( 6 ) ONE needs only to compare the aforesaid finding with prayer (a) contained in the plaint. It would at once become clear that the finding of the learned Trial court that the determination of valuation or assessment is not under challenge is perverse.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the order, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has come up before this Court under Article 227.

( 8 ) MR. Das Adhikari, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted as follows : (a) The suit against the Corporation without a notice under section 586 is specifically barred. (b) The suit is barred under section 189 (9) of the Calcutta Munic