PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the C. P. C.) for dismissal of the suit. It appears that the plaintiff filed a declaratory suit as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. The following prayers have been made in the plaint: - (A) Declaration that the impugned notice being No. C/x5/107 dated 13. 2. 93 issued by the defendants is wrongful, illegal, arbitrary and not enforceable and consequently the defendants are stopped from enforcing the same and the same is liable to be set aside and/or quashed; (B) Declaration that the bill raised at the annual valuation of Rs. 2,37,000/- for the period from 1st october, 1990 to 4th quarter, 1994 is apparently unlawful, illegal and should be cancelled and revised bill in terms of the annual valuation fixed by the defendants. Hearing Officer dated 27. 2. 1989 be issued. (C) Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to consider the objection filed by the plaintiff with respect to the annual valuation in terms of the notice dated 1st March, 1994 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. (D) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from giving any effect or further effect to the notice dated February 13,1997; (E) Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to adjust a sum of Rs. 5. 15 lacs paid on ad hoc basis against the dues and to raise the revised bills; (F) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from demanding any amount as claimed in the said notice dated 13th February, 1997 or at all; (G) Declaration that the impugned notice dated 13th February, 1997 be adjudged void, delivered upon and cancelled. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit inter alia on the ground of determination of annual value in respect of the premises No. 16, Bon field Lane, Kolkata. It is necessary that a suit if filed by the plaintiff, has to be filed after serving a notice under Section 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Section 586 of the relevant Act states as follows :-"section 586. It is necessary that a suit if filed by the plaintiff, has to be filed after serving a notice under Section 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Section 586 of the relevant Act states as follows :-"section 586. Notice, limitation and tender of amends in suits against the Corporation etc.- (1) No suit shall be instituted in any court having jurisdiction against any Municipal Authority or any officer or employee of the Corporation or any person acting under the direction of any Municipal Authority or any officer or employee of the Corporation in respect of any Act or the Rules or the regulations made thereunder, until the expiration of one month next after a notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office or the residence of such officer or employee or. person, stating- (a) the cause of action; (b) the name and residence of the intending plaintiff, and (c) the relief which such plaintiff claims. (2) Every such suit shall be commenced within four months next after accrual of the cause of action, and the plaint therein shall contain a statement that a notice has been delivered or left as required by sub-sections (1) and (3) if the Municipal Authority, at the office of which, or the officer or the person acting under the direction of any Municipal authority or employee of the Corporation, at the office or the residence of whom, a notice has been delivered or left under section (1), satisfied the court having jurisdiction that the relief claimed was tendered to the plaintiff before the institution of the suit, the suit shall be dismissed and (4) Nothing in the foregoing sub-section 38 of the Act shall apply to any suit instituted under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. " ( 3 ) IT is a fact that the said section has a mandatory section as has been pointed out before me by Mr. Ashoke Kumar Das Adhikari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the C. M. C. ( 4 ) MR. Ashoke Kumar Adhikari relied upon a judgment in The Jawali Harijan Co-Operative agricultural Society v. Maghu etc. " ( 3 ) IT is a fact that the said section has a mandatory section as has been pointed out before me by Mr. Ashoke Kumar Das Adhikari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the C. M. C. ( 4 ) MR. Ashoke Kumar Adhikari relied upon a judgment in The Jawali Harijan Co-Operative agricultural Society v. Maghu etc. And contended that non-compliance of requirement of service of notice will make a suit a bar and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule ll (d) of the C. P. C. It is also a fact that the said point has been taken by the Municipal Authorities in their Affidavit-in-Opposition dated 9th May, 1997 at very first stage of the proceedings. ( 5 ) HE further submitted that the plea of the plaintiffs claiming an exemption under subsection (4) of section 586 is of no substance since the prayer itself indicate the suit is declaratory one and filed as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. However, Section 38 itself is subject to other provisions of the Chapter being Chapter V11i and subject to section 41 (h) which specifically stipulates that when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceedings except in case of the breach of the trust- an injunction cannot be granted. In this regard prayer 'c' of the plaint is very relevant Section 48 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act must be read together as supplementing each other When Section 38 defines the circumstances under which perpetual injunction must not be granted. The relevant provision of section 41 reads as follows:-"section 41. Injunction when refused.-an injunction cannot be granted- (a) to (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h) when equally efficatious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust". In that view of the matter the alleged plea on the part of the plaintiff is of course without any substance and ought to be rejected. . . . . . . . . . . . (h) when equally efficatious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust". In that view of the matter the alleged plea on the part of the plaintiff is of course without any substance and ought to be rejected. ( 6 ) HE also submitted that the suit is otherwise barred under sub-section (9) of Section 189 of the CMC Act, 1980 which excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court to try a matter with regard to valuation or assessment in suit or proceedings. Thus it creates an express bar on the Civil Court to try the matter relating to consider objection i. e. determination of valuation or assessment which is exclusively vested upon the Assessment Tribunal. The relevant portion of Section 189 (9) of the Act reads as follows:"section 189. Appeal before the Municipal assesssment Tribunal.- (9) the decision of the Tribunal with regard to valuation or assessment shall be final and no suit or proceeding shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any matter which has been or may be referred to or has been decided by the Tribunal. "in support of his contention he relied upon the judgments reported in Ajad and Ors. v. Dharmpal and Ors. , Rahul Windoors Limited v. A. K Menon and Anr. ( 7 ) IN view of the above circumstances the instant suit is barred by this principle as envisaged under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, 1 do not have any hesitation to agree with the submissions and contentions made by Mr. Mr. Ashoke Kumar Das Adhikari and 1 have no hesitation to accept this contention and to pass an order in terms of prayer (a ). Petition allowed.