JUDGMENT This is an appeal by the Municipal Corporation, Indore against the judgment and decree passed by the VII Additional District, Judge, Indore, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. When the Municipal Corporation adopted house tax assessment list for the year 1967-68 by EX.D-4 for the subsequent year 1968-69, whether it was necessary to give an opportunity to the respondent assessee as required by S.145 of the Municipal Corporation Act 2. Whether the jurisdiction of the Court is excluded by virtue of S. 189 when notice u/s. 369 of the Municipal Corporation Act was sent under certificate of posting?". Held: Since the second question goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain such a litigation let's take first that question. Shri S.J. Dhanji learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rata Shoes Company v. Jabalpur Municipality(A1R 1977 SC 955) has contended that civil Courts will have no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Sec. 189 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). In aforesaid case construing Sec.84 (3) of the C.P. Municipalities Act, 1922 it was held that jurisdiction of civil Courts in the matters of taxation was inpliedly barred. Sec.189 (1) of the Act employs exactly the same language which is employed in S.84 (3) of the C.P. Municipalities Act. The ruling, Therefore, squarely applies to this case and the subject matter of this case was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. The learned first appellate Court as well as the trial Court have ignored this aspect of the matter and have held that the civil Court had jurisdiction as the process of assessment was not yet complete. In my view Rata Shoes Company's case (supra) squarely covers the point and it is held therein that the civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter of objection to any valuation, assessment or levy or to the liability of any person to be assessed for the tax. I, therefore, hold that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is barred by Sec. 189 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. I, therefore, hold that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is barred by Sec. 189 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. In view of the decision on the aforesaid question as to jurisdiction, there is no need to consider the second point of law. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are set-aside. The cost of this appeal shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant. AIR 1977 SC 955 followed.