The Chief Justice.-This is an appeal against the order of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing an application by the appellant, the Indian Mutual Life Association Ltd., made under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The appellant prayed that the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, be directed to correct the assessment books maintained by him under rule 1, of Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Act by deleting the name of the applicant in the said books from the list of companies liable to payment of company’s tax and thereby bring the assessment books in conformity with the order passed by the learned Chief judge of the Court of Small Causes in Taxation Appeal No. 2 of 1947, dated 24th February, 1948. The immediate cause for the application was the demand by the Corporation of company’s tax for the first half year 1949-50. There was a prior assessment of company’s tax on the appellant company in 1942-43, and the company eventually succeeded in obtaining a decision from the Court of Small Causes in Appeal (T.A. No. 2 of 1947) that the appellant was not liable to be assessed under section no of the City Municipal Act. It is admitted that, in accordance with this decision of the Court of Small Causes, the tax collected from the appellant for that half-year was refunded. It also appears that after the date of that decision there has been no further levy of company’s tax on the appellant till 1949-50. The first question that arises is whether a remedy by way of an application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act is open to the appellant. Proviso (d) to that section enacts that the remedy by way of mandamus would be available only if the applicant has no other specific and adequate legal remedy. It was conceded that, in respect of the assessment now in dispute, the appellant had the remedies provided in Schedule IV to the City Municipal Act. He could first file an appeal to the Taxation Appeals Committee and then to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes and he could also ask for a reference to this Court if a question of law was involved in the case. There is therefore another specific legal remedy. He could first file an appeal to the Taxation Appeals Committee and then to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes and he could also ask for a reference to this Court if a question of law was involved in the case. There is therefore another specific legal remedy. But it was contended that this remedy is not adequate, because the appellant may be compelled to take similar proceedings by way of appeals and references in every half-year. Assuming this is so and that it would cause the appellant inconvenience and expense, we cannot hold that on that ground the remedies under the City Municipal Act are not adequate. For that matter, even in spite of an order on this application, it may be the Commissioner might again assess the appellant in which case the appellant may have to again resort to another application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. But then Mr.T.M. Ramaswami Aiyar, for the appellant, urged that the decision of this Court would be res judicata. In fact, he went further and contended that even the decision of the Small Cause Court in respect of the assessment of the year 1942-43 would operate as res judicata. We have not heard him on this point as, in our opinion, this is a point which might well be taken before the Court of Small Causes. The only question which falls for decision is whether this application under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable. As, in our opinion the appellant has another specific and adequate legal remedy, the application is not maintainable. The application does not appear to be maintainable also for another reason. The prayer as framed is for a direction to correct the assessment books maintained by the Corporation by deleting the name of the applicant from the list of companies liable to payment of company’s tax. We see nothing in the provisions of the City Municipal Act, including the schedules under which a permanent record of assessment is kept in which occasionally there should be changes made in accordance with decisions of Courts, something like what is done in the case of Survey and Settlement registers and Record of Rights. It cannot therefore be said that it was incumbent on the Commissioner to do any such act as is mentioned in the application of the appellant. It cannot therefore be said that it was incumbent on the Commissioner to do any such act as is mentioned in the application of the appellant. For these reasons we agree with the learned Judge that the application must be dismissed as not maintainable. We have, of course, refrained completely from going into the merits in the view that we have taken. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. K.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.