JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J.— The plaintiffs have filed this second appeal feeling aggrieved from the judgment of reversal The parties hereinafter in the judgment shall be referred to as the "plaintiffs" and the “defendants”. 2. The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed by the plaintiffs laying challenge to the recovery being made from them by the Municipal Corporation in respect of the taxes on the building pertaining to the period 1969 to 1979. 3. The learned trial Court on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties granted to the plaintiffs a decree as prayed for by them. In sequence thereof, the defendants were restrained from taking any tax on the basis of the recovery notice and were further restrained from recovering any amount. 4. The appeal filed by the defendants laying challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court stands accepted by the learned first appellate Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has brought to my notice the provisions contained in Section 65 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968 which reads as under :— "65. Public notice of time fixed for revising assessment lists.—(1) The committee shall, at the time of the publication of such an assessment list, give public notice of a time; not less than one month, thereafter, when it will proceed to revise the valuation and assessment ; and in all cases in which any property is for the first time assessed, or the assessment thereof is increased, it shall also give notice thereof to the owner or occupier of the property. (2) All objections to the valuation and assessment shall be made in writing before the time fixed in the notice, or orally or in writing at that time." On the basis of these provisions, it is sought to be contended that the recovery in question could not be made without any notice and opportunity to the plaintiffs. 6. As I look at the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, I find what persuaded the learned Court to accept the appeal was the fact that on an earlier occasion when the assessment was revised, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had laid challenge to it by way of filing a writ petition in the High Court which was accepted and directions were issued to re-assess the building. The re-assessment was made which was challenged by the predecessor-in interest of the plaintiffs in a civil suit which was decreed by the learned trial Court, but the appeal filed by the Corporation was accepted and the second appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in this Court was dismissed. 7. The learned first appellate Court while relying upon the judgments passed earlier came to conclude that the matter already stands decided and finalised by the Civil Court decree and the re-assessment of the annual value is lawful. 8. Learned counsel submits that the earlier proceedings were in respect of the assessment prior to 1969 and as the re assessment had been made thereafter, the challenge has been made in respect of the revised assessment for the period 19/2 to 1979, 9. In my considered opinion, the learned first appellate Court certainly went wrong in accepting the appeal filed by the defendants and it has been wrongly concluded that the re-assessment had become final and the matter could not be re-agitated by the plaintiffs. 10. The plaintiffs, as I look at the matter, are not laying any challenge to the assessment orders which have become final prior to the year 1969. As the building has been re-assessed and the rates have been increased, this certainly gave to the plaintiffs a fresh cause of action to lay challenge to the proposed recovery and the suit could not be dismissed on that score. The suit could not be dismissed on the ground that the proceedings initiated earlier had attained finality. 11. A reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it mandatory that a notice is to be served on the plaintiffs which conspicuously was not issued in the present case. 12. On a reading of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the point has been rightly appraised and answered. 13. In view of what has been said above, the notice of recovery issued to the plaintiffs by the Corporation is to be held as completely violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 65 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968 which has been reproduced above in the earlier part of this judgment. 14. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court is set-aside and the one passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. 14. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court is set-aside and the one passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. This shall, however, not debar the Municipal Corporation from recovering the taxes due, but the same would be done after following proper procedure and after issuing notice and affording opportunity to the plaintiffs to show cause against the proposed recovery. 15. The appeal succeeds and is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. -