JUDGMENT - MAHAJAN S.G., J.:—Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel on both the sides. 2. It is the case of the revision petitioners that in pursuance of the notice issued to them by the Commissioner under section 134 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, they raised an objection to the proposed amendment of the assessment list in respect of their house situated at Plot No. 14, Dongre Layout, Nagpur. As per the revision petitioners, it was for the Commissioner to decide the objection by investigating the same under section 129 of the Act and thereafter to pass the necessary order. However, the Commissioner, without investigating into the matter, issued a bill of demand. This, according to the revision petitioners, is an implied rejection of their objection. Hence, they filed an appeal under section 130 of the Act in the District Court, Nagpur. The learned Joint District Judge, Nagpur, by his order dated 6-4-2002, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable. 3. Heard the learned Counsel on both the sides. 4. The reason given by the learned Joint District Judge, Nagpur, while dismissing the appeal, is that the appeal was preferred by the present revision petitioners under section 130 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act and under that section the appeal lies against the order passed by the Commissioner under section 129 of the Act determining the objections. As per the Joint District Judge, since the objections were not determined by the Commissioner and only the bill of demand was issued no appeal lies against the said order. 5. The order passed by the Joint District Judge, Nagpur, shall have to be set aside and the matter will have to be remanded back to the said Court for disposing of the appeal on merits. Obviously, the notice was issued to the revision petitioners by the Commissioner proposing the amendment of the assessment list under section 134 of the Act. The notice also mentions that it was the notice under section 134 of the Act and thirty days time was also given to file the objections, if any. The revision petitioners thereupon filed their objection on 22-8-2000. Thereafter it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to investigate into the said objection and to pass the necessary order. However, instead of investigating into the matter, the bill of demand was issued. The revision petitioners thereupon filed their objection on 22-8-2000. Thereafter it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to investigate into the said objection and to pass the necessary order. However, instead of investigating into the matter, the bill of demand was issued. Even though the objection is not determined by passing a specific order, the issuance of bill of demand amounts to implied rejection of the objection raised by the revision petitioners. In this view, it can be said that a dispute has arisen as to the liability to assessment within the contemplation of section 130 of the Act and appeal would lie from the decision of the Commissioner to the District Court, Nagpur. Failure on the part of the Commissioner to investigate into the objection and to pass a specific order determining the objection would not take away the case out of the purview of the provision under section 129 of the Act so as to say that an appeal would not lie to the District Court under section 130 of the Act. 6. In the above view of the matter, the following order: The impugned order passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nagpur, on 6-4-2002, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the revision petitioners on the ground that it was not maintainable, is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Joint District Judge, Nagpur, with a direction to decide the appeal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The interim order passed by this Court on 10-4-2002 and continued from time to time shall remain in force till the disposal of appeal by the District Court. 7. Rule is disposed of in above terms. Order accordingly. -----