S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the present petition, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders which are dated 7. 11. 1996 and 21. 9. 1996 passed by the district Judge, Allahabad and Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad respectively. The District Judge, Allahabad by his order dated 7. 11. 1996 dismissed second appeal being No. 275 of 1996 preferred by the petitioners holding that the. appeal was not maintainable. The aforestated second appeal stemmed from the order dated 21. 9. 1996 passed by the Additional judge, Small Causes Court in mutation appeal No. 286 of 1989 by which amendment/substitution applications 28c and 29c filed by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17 and under Order XXII, Rule 4, C. P. C. at the appellate stage. ( 2 ) IT would transpire from a perusal of the record that one Devi Prasad was arrayed as a party respondent No. 1 in the memo of appeal. By means of the amendment application 28c, the petitioner desired to re-christen the description of Devi Prasad as Bairagi/sanyasi, Chela of Smt. Ram Devi, Bairagini. Subsequently, during the pendency of the said application 28c, Devi prasad Shukla met his natural end and an application 29c came to be moved attended with the prayer that the name of Devi Prasad Shukla be inked out from the array of the parties. Since the second appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 476 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika adhiniyam, 1959 has been dismissed on ground of being not maintainable, it would not be in the fitness of things to traverse upon the correctness of the order dated 21. 9. 1996. for in case, it is held that the second appeal was maintainable, the mater will have to be relegated to the District judge for decision of the second appeal on merits in accordance with law, Accordingly, counsel for the parties have been heard. ( 3 ) THE petitioners herein applied for mutation of their names in the Municipal records in place of late Shitla Prasad Shukla which was objected to by the contesting respondents. The mutation application, it transpires, was rejected whereupon an appeal was preferred by the petitioners under Section 472 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (In short the adhiniyam)and. The mutation application, it transpires, was rejected whereupon an appeal was preferred by the petitioners under Section 472 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (In short the adhiniyam)and. it was during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioners moved two applications i. e. . 28c and 29c which were rejected by the Additional Judge. Small Causes Court, Allahabad vide order dated 21. 9. 1996. It has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order appealed against under Section 472 did not come within the purview of Section 472 and hence the second appeal under Section 476 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam too would not be maintainable and the learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the appeal as not maintainable. Section 472 of the Adhiniyam which provides for an appeal, is excerpted below : "472. Appeals when and to whom to lie.-- (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any annual value or tax filed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge : provided that any such appeal pending at any stage before the Judge may be transferred by the district Judge for hearing and disposal, to any Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes or civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge having jurisdiction in the city. (2) No such appeal shall be heard unless : (a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint ; (b) in the case of an appeal against an annual value an objection has previously been made and has been disposed of under Section 209; (c) in the case of an appeal against any tax in respect of which provision exists under this Act for an objection to be made to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari against the demand, such objection has previously been made and disposed of; (d) in the case of an appeal against any amendment or alteration made in the assessment list for properly taxes under sub-section (1) of Section 213. an objection has been made in pursuance of a notice Issued under the proviso to the said sub-section and such objection has been disposed of ; (e) In the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against an annual value after a bill for any property tax assessed upon such value has been presented to the appellant, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Mukhya nagar Adhikari. " ( 4 ) IT would be evident from the provisions quoted above that an appeal under Section 472 of the adhiniyam would He against "any annual value or tax fixed or charged" under the Adhiniyam. The question that begs consideration is whether mutating the name of a person in the Municipal record is tantamount to any annual value or tax being fixed or charged under the Adhiniyam. Clause Id) of sub-section (2) of Section 472 clearly visualises that an appeal would He against "any amendment or alteration made in the assessment list for property taxes under subsection (1)of Section 213" provided an objection has been made In pursuance of a notice issued under the proviso to the said sub-section and such objection has been disposed of. Section 213 of the adhiniyam in so far as it is germane to the controversy involved in the case, is quoted below : "213. Amendment and alteration of fist.-- (1) The Executive Committee or a sub-committee thereof appointed in this behalf may at any time alter or amend the assessment list (a) by entering therein the name of any person of any properly which ought to have been entered or any property which has become liable to taxation after the authentication of the assessment list ; or (b) by substituting therein for the name of the owner or occupier of any property the name of any other person who has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the property. Provided that the Executive Committee or the sub-committee, as the case may be. shall give at least one months notice to any person interested in any alteration for amendment which the executive Committee or subcommittee proposes to make under clauses (a), (b ). (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) and of the date on which the alteration or amendment will be made. shall give at least one months notice to any person interested in any alteration for amendment which the executive Committee or subcommittee proposes to make under clauses (a), (b ). (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) and of the date on which the alteration or amendment will be made. (3) Every alteration or amendment made under subsection (1) shall be authenticated by the signature or signatures of the person authorised by Section 210 and. subject to the result of an appeal under Section 472, shall take effect from the date on which the next instalment falls due. " ( 5 ) A conjoint reading of Section 472 and Section 213 would crystallise that an order rejecting or allowing mutation application would be appealable under Section 472 of the Adhiniyam subject to the fulfilment of other conditions stipulated in Section 472 of the Adhiniyam. The submission made by Sri S. D. Kautilya that appeal under Section 472 itself was not maintainable does not commend itself for acceptance. ( 6 ) THE next question that emerges for consideration is whether second appeal preferred against the order dated 21. 9. 1996 was not maintainable as held by the learned District Judge. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the order dated 21. 9. 1996 was not an order passed in appeal under Section 472 of the Adhiniyam. Rather. it was. submitted the learned counsel. an order passed on the amendment application made under Order VI, Rule 17 and Order xxii, Rule 4, C. P. C. Sri Umesh Naraln Sharma, appearing for the respondents counteracting the contentions, urged that the second appeal was maintainable under clause (b) of Section 476 of the Adhiniyam. In order to appreciate the contention raised at the bar. Section 476 of the adhiniyam may be quoted below : "476. Appeal to the District Judge.--An appeal shall lie to the District Judge (a) from any decision of the Judge in an appeal under Section 472 by which an annual value in excess of twelve thousand rupees is fixed and. In order to appreciate the contention raised at the bar. Section 476 of the adhiniyam may be quoted below : "476. Appeal to the District Judge.--An appeal shall lie to the District Judge (a) from any decision of the Judge in an appeal under Section 472 by which an annual value in excess of twelve thousand rupees is fixed and. (b) from any other decision of the Judge in an appeal under the said section, upon a question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document : provided that no such appeal shall be heard by the District Judge unless it is filed within one month from the date cf the decision of the Judge. " ( 7 ) IT would be evident from a perusal of Section 476 that appeal shall lie to the District Judge not only against any decision of the Judge in an appeal under Section 472 of the Adhiniyam by which annual value in excess of Rs. 12,000 is fixed, bui also from any other decision of the judge in an appeal under the said section upon a question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document. The expression from any other decision of the Judge in an appeal occurring in clause (b) of Section 476 of the Adhiniyam, In my opinion, carries wide connotation. The order rejecting an amendment application under Order VI, Rule 17 would be a decision of the Judge in an appeal under Section 472 of the Adhiniyam and hence the appeal would be maintainable provided, of course, it raises a question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document. The view taken by the learned District Judge that second appeal would He only against a final order deciding the appeal under Section 472 of the adhiniyam is, in my opinion, unsustainable. Any decision in an appeal under Section 472 would be open to Second Appeal under section 476 of the Adhiniyam upon a question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document. The learned District Judge did not delve into the question as to whether the order dated 21. 9. Any decision in an appeal under Section 472 would be open to Second Appeal under section 476 of the Adhiniyam upon a question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document. The learned District Judge did not delve into the question as to whether the order dated 21. 9. 1996 raised a question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document and proceeded to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable holding that the order dated 21. 9. 1996 was not subject to appeal under Section 476 of the Adhiniyam since it was not a final decision under Section 472 of the Adhiniyam. The impugned order dated 7. 11. 1996 is, therefore, unsustainable. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 7. 11. 1996 is quashed. The matter is relegated to the District Judge Allahabad for deciding the second appeal under Section 476 of the Adhiniyam afresh after addressing himself to the question as to whether the order dated 21. 9. 1996 raises a question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document. .