JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This is plaintiffs second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The plaintiff-appellant has impugned the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2002 passed by the District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari who has affirmed the findings recorded by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagadhari holding that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to exemption from payment of house tax in view of the notification dated 13.12.2001. 2. Few facts which are necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Suit No. 1006 of 2k-98 on 20.1.1997 seeking a declaration that the notice dated 3.1.1997 issued under Section 94 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) by the Municipal Committee, Yamunanagar for realising the house tax for the year 1996-97 in respect of her house was illegal, null and void as it was claimed that the imposition of house tax was against the law and standing instructions. The plaintiff-appellant claimed exemption from house tax on the ground that she is the wife of an ex-serviceman and in accordance with paragraph 9 of the notification dated 30.12.1992 she could not be asked to pay the house tax. On the basis of aforementioned notification consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from recovering the house tax was also claimed. 3. The Civil Judge held that paragraph 9 of the notification dated 30.12.1992 does not come to the rescue of the plaintiff-appellant because it exempts only those buildings which are owned by Ex-servicemen or families of deceased soldiers and Ex-servicemen subject to certain other conditions. The Civil Judge further held that in view of the bar created by Section 101 of the Act regarding valuation of assessment or the liability of the person to pay the house tax, no suit is maintainable. The jurisdiction of the civil court is barred and an appeal under Section 99 is maintainable. On the basis of aforementioned provisions, the suit was held to be not maintainable. 4. On appeal, the learned Appellate Court after holding that the suit was maintainable proceeded to consider as to whether exemption given by the notification dated 13.12.2001 was available to the plaintiff-appellant. On the basis of aforementioned provisions, the suit was held to be not maintainable. 4. On appeal, the learned Appellate Court after holding that the suit was maintainable proceeded to consider as to whether exemption given by the notification dated 13.12.2001 was available to the plaintiff-appellant. It has been held that the exemption would not be available as it is only the family of deceased soldier and ex-serviceman who could be considered for exemption from payment of house tax under that Clause. The observations of the learned Appellate Court read as under :- "Argument of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff on the point is not convincing. If we read the word "deceased" with soldiers only and not with Ex-servicemen, the same would give rise to anomalous interpretation as in that case property in the name of families of serving soldier would be paying house-tax whereas property in the name of families of Ex-servicemen would be exempted from house tax. The same cannot be said to be intention of Haryana Government while issuing the said notification. The word "deceased" has to be read with both serving soldiers as well as with ex-servicemen. Exemption has been given from house-tax towards building and land owned by ex-servicemen or families of deceased Ex-servicemen. If Ex-serviceman is alive, family of ex- serviceman cannot claim exemption of house tax with respect to any property standing in his/her name. In the present case admittedly the ex-serviceman is alive and the property in dispute is standing in the name of his wife, i.e. appellant-plaintiff. Hence, it cannot be said that the same is exempted from the payment of house tax. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff." 5. I have heard Mr. O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant who has argued that Clause 6 of the notification clearly grants exemption to the plaintiff-appellant because it does not restrict the benefit of exemption from house tax only to the families of deceased Ex-Servicemen. According to the learned counsel, the expression deceased has to confine to soldiers and it would not qualify Ex-Servicemen. In other words, the learned counsel argued that the families of all Ex-Servicemen even if they are alive would be covered by Clause 6 of the notification. According to the learned counsel, the expression deceased has to confine to soldiers and it would not qualify Ex-Servicemen. In other words, the learned counsel argued that the families of all Ex-Servicemen even if they are alive would be covered by Clause 6 of the notification. In order to make it more explicit, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Hindi version of the notification dated 13.12.2001 and argued that since Hindi is the official language in Haryana, the notification in Hindi shall be taken as correct. The notifications in Hindi and English have been taken on record as Marks A and B. 6. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and am of the view that this appeal is devoid of merit. I have also gone through Clause 6 of the notification dated 13.12.2001 along with its Hindi version which reads as under :- "6. All buildings and lands owned by ex-servicemen or families of deceased soldiers and ex-servicemen; provided they have no other residential house in Haryana State and are residing in it themselves and have not let out any portion of the house; provided further that the condition of letting out of the house shall not apply to those who are in receipt of pension amounting to one thousand two hundred and seventy-five rupees per mensem or less." �6- HkwriwoZ lSfudks vFkok erd lSfudksa rFkk HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds ifjokj ds LokfeRo ds v/khu lHkh Hkou rFkk Hkwfe;ka ckrsZ mud ikl gfj;k.kk jkT; esa dksbZ vU; vkoklh; xg u gks vkSj bles os Lo;a jg jgs gksa vkSj xg dk dksbZ Hkkx fdjk;s ij u ns j[kk gks ] ijUrq ;g vkSj fd xg fdjk;s ij nsus dh krZ mu ij ykxw ugha gksxh tks ckjg lkS iPg�kj :i;s vFkok blls dk :i;s izfr ekg iSUku ys jgs gksa A� 7. A perusal of Clause 6 makes it evident that the families of deceased soldiers and ex-servicemen have been granted exemption. The word deceased occurring before soldiers has to be read before the word ex-servicemen. In other words, the families of the deceased soldiers and the dead ex-servicemen would be entitled to exemption from payment of house tax but this will not enure to the benefit of families of those ex-servicemen who are alive. The word deceased occurring before soldiers has to be read before the word ex-servicemen. In other words, the families of the deceased soldiers and the dead ex-servicemen would be entitled to exemption from payment of house tax but this will not enure to the benefit of families of those ex-servicemen who are alive. If the interpretation sought by the plaintiff-appellant is placed on this clause, it would show absurd results because then the families of dead soldiers as well as the living ex-servicemen would also be exempted. The intention of the notification appears to be to exempt the families of dead soldiers as well as dead ex-servicemen. Even the Hindi version uses the word which in English would mean And. The same interpretation has to be given to the Hindi version as well. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or error in the interpretation of the provisions made by both the Courts below. It is well settled that the interpretation which sustains the rules by avoiding discrimination resulting in infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution should be preferred rather than the one which sustains the same. Such an interpretation in the instant case would also be necessary because ex- servicemen and soldiers have to be treated alike for the purposes of exemption as they belong to same class/category. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.