Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 30.12.02 passed in A.S.No.19/2002, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2001 passed in O.S. No.124/2001, on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:

Whether the finding of the Courts below that the suit is not maintainable in view of the statutory remedies available against the order challenged in the suit under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act is illegal, since the ground put forward is that the procedure established by law has not been followed?

3. Inasmuch as the only point that is involved in this second appeal is as to whether the civil suit is maintainable as regards the challenge made to the revision of the tax made by the authorities concerned under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920, without following the statutory remedies available under the above said Act.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is found that three special notices had been issued by the defendant Municipality, directing the plaintiffs to pay the half year property tax as detailed thereunder. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs preferred the revision before the respondent authorities as provided under the Act and however, the said revision has come to be rejected. Impugning the order passed in the revision, the plaintiffs preferred the appeal before the Tax Appellate Committee constituted under the Act and it is found that as regards the assessment pertaining to the new assessment number 18889, the Tax Appellate Committee was pleased to reduce the tax to a certain level and accordingly, disposed of the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Not satisfied with the same, impugning the above said tax assessment determination, as per the special notice dated 23.3.2000, for the new assessment number 18889 as illegal, null and void, the plaintiffs have the civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant municipality.

5. The defendant municipality inter alia contended that the property tax has been revised following the procedures contemplated under the Act and in accordance with the rules stipulated therein, also raised the defence that the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit levied by the plaintiffs and if at all the plaintiffs are aggrieved over the judgment by the Tax Appellate Committee, their only remedy is to go for second appeal before the District Judge concerned as per the amended rule of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and hence, sought for the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit.

6. The Courts below concurred with the contentions of the defendant municipality and held that the Civil suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have to avail their remedy only before the authorities constituted under the Act and accordingly, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiffs. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.

7. The plaintiffs' counsel contended that inasmuch as the revision of tax made by the defendant municipality is being impugned as not having been passed or made in compliance with the statutory requirements as provided under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and as well as the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, according to him, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted. Hence, it is contended that the suit laid by the plaintiffs is maintainable and hence, it is argued that inasmuch as the Courts below had not disposed of the suit on merits, the matter should be remitted back to the trial Court for a fresh consideration of the suit on merits. In this connection, he placed reliance upon the decisions reported in AIR 1971 SCC 353 (Guntur Municipal Council Vs. Guntur Town Rate Payers Association, etc.,), (2002) 1 MLJ 391 (The