( 1 ) TWO second appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 29th May, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge inrcano. 159/1985 and RCA No. 157/1985. For the sake of convenience, this Regular Second Appeal being RSA No. 107/1985 was taken up as the main case.

( 2 ) THE question of law framed for consideration on 11th September, 1985 reads as follows: whether the limitation for filing the suit for injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of assessment of property for a particular year has to be computed under Section 478 (2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act or whether Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the case?

( 3 ) SECTION 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act) reads as follows: 478. Notice to be given of suits.

(1) No suit shall be instituted against the Corporation or against any municipal authority or against any municipal officer or other municipal employee or against any person acting under the order or direction of any municipal authority or any municipal officer or other municipal employee, in respect of any act done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law made thereunder until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been left at the municipal office and, in the case of such officer, employee or person, unless notice in writing has also been delivered to him or left at his office or place of residence, and unless such notice states explicitly the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed, and the name and place of residence of the intending plaintiff, and unless the plaint contains a statement that such notice has been so left or delivered.

(2) No suit, such as is described in Sub-section (1), shall unless it is a suit for the recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto, be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date on which the cause of action arises.

(3) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to apply to a suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit.

( 4 ) THE appellant was assessed to property tax in respect of plot No. 231, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Ill, New Delhi. The rateable value was fixed at Rs 7,480/- per annum for the period from 1972-73 onwards.

( 5 ) THE respondent sought to upwardly revise the rateable value and, therefore, issued a notice dated 30th March, 1977 under Section 126 of the Act. This notice came back unserved with the report that no such person is available at the given address.

( 6 ) THE relevant portion of Section 126 of the Act reads as follows: 126. Amendment of assessment list. (1) The Commissioner may, at any time, amend the assessment list (a) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be inserted; or (b) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted; or (c) by striking out the name of any person not liable for the payment of property taxes; or (d) by increasing or reducing for adequate reasons the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment thereupon; or (e) by making or cancelling any entry exempting any land or building from liability to any property tax; or (f) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake or accident; or (g) by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building erected, re-erected, altered or added to, after the preparation of the assessment list: provided that no person shall by reason of any such amendment become liable to pay any tax or increase of tax in respect of any period prior to the commencement of the year in which the notice under Sub-section (2) is given. (2) Before making any amendment under Sub-section (1) the Commissioner shall give t