( 1 ) THESE three revision applications arise out of the assessment proceedings for the purposes of assessing the property tax in respect of the house property of the petitioner herein for the assessment years 1975-76. 1978 and 1979-80 respectively seeking to fix the rateable value at Rs. 45 174 Rs. 46 620 and Rs. 72 233 respectively by the Commissioner of the respondent-Municipal Corporation. The petitioner-assessees therefore carried the matter in appeal before the Civil Judge (S. D.) Surat being Assessment Appeals Nos. 13/77 19 and 20/80 respectively. In course of hearing of these appeals the petitioner-assessee moved application seeking permission to adduce evidence in support of the appeals.

( 2 ) IN Appeal No. 13/77 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 1089 of 1980 arises the Advocate for the petitioner-assessee made a cryptic application praying that the Court may proceed to conduct the appeal after recording the evidence of the parties and in case the Court is not inclined to record the evidence the question as to whether the evidence should be allowed to be recorded or not may be referred to the District Court as permitted under sec. 410 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 3 ) IN Assessment Appeals Nos. 19180 and 20180 out of which Civil Revision Applications Nos. 1731 and 1730 of 1983 arise the Advocate for the petitioner-assessee submitted a detailed applications stating the reasons for granting the permission to the assessee to adduce the evidence. The sole reason on which this permission was sought was that the Assessment Officer has not recorded any evidence and therefore his assessment was arbitrary and void. It was therefore prayed that the petitioner be permitted to adduce evidence in the appeal and in case the Court was of the opinion that no such permission could be granted and the appeal should be disposed of on the evidence as it existed on the record of the assessment proceedings the question as to whether the assessee should be permitted to lead evidence or not be referred to the District Court under sec. 410 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge so far as Appeal No. 13/77 was concerned held that the proceedings before the Civil Judge were not in nature of original proceedings but were appellate proceedings in which additional evidence can be permitted only if the conditions prescribed in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code are complied with and therefore there was no necessity of referring the matter to the District Court. The learned Judge therefore by his order of 14/12/1979 rejected the application.

( 5 ) HOWEVER in Appeals Nos. 19 and 20 of 1980 the learned Judge referred the assessment rules known as Taxation Rules as contained in Chapter VIII of Schedule-A to the Act as well as the Municipal Appeal Rules 1976 as framed by this Court in exercise of its superintendence power under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. and on reading the relevant application for permission to adduce evidence the learned Judge could not spell out any worthwhile reasons warranting such a Permission. He therefore by his order of 8/08/1983 dismissed both the applications.

( 6 ) THESE these orders are the subject matter of these revision applications before me.

( 7 ) SINCE these three revision applications raise some question of general importance relating to the procedure to be adopted before the Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under sec. 406 of the Act it would be necessary to advert shortly as to what is precisely the nature of these proceedings. Sec. 406 to sec. 416-A contain the provisions of appeals against the valuation and taxes as well as appeals to Civil Appellate Court front the orders of the First Appellate Authority. Sec. 406 (1) provides that subject to the provisions contained in Part III of Chapter 26 of the Act appeals against any rateable value of tax fixed or charged under the Act shall be heard an