JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) - The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the defendant Municipal Committee, Kharar from recovering House Tax for the years 1973-74 to 1976-77. Preliminary objection was raised by Municipal Committee, Kharar that Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain suit against assessment of the House Tax as appeal is provided under Sections 84 and 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The trial Court framed issues No. 3 and 4 which were as follows :- 3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter in suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 2. Both the above issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the Civil Court did have the jurisdiction because the assessment was not done as per law. Appeal filed by the Municipal Committee before the Additional District Judge, Ropar was dismissed vide judgment dated 7.8.1982. It is against these judgments that the present appeal has been filed. 3. Counsel for the appellant has again argued that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Sections 84 and 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as an appeal against the assessment of House Tax is provided under Section 84 of the Act. Section 84 is reproduced under :- "84. Appeals against taxation. - (1) An appeal against the assessment or levy of any or against the refusal to refund any tax under this Act shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner or to such other officer as may be empowered by the State Government in this behalf : Provided that, when the Deputy Commissioner or such officer as aforesaid, is, or was when the tax was imposed, a member of the committee, the appeal shall lie to the Commissioner of the Division. (2) If, on the hearing of an appeal under the section, any question as to the liability to, or the principle of assessment of, a tax arises, on which the officer hearing the appeal entertains reasonable doubt, he may, either of his own motion or on the application of any person interested, draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained, and refer the statement with his own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court. (3) On a reference being made under sub-section (2), the subsequent proceedings in this case shall be, as nearly as may be, in conformity with the rules relating to references to the High Court contained in Section 113 and Order 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (4) In every appeal the costs shall be in the discretion of the officer deciding the appeal. (5) Costs awarded under this section to the committee shall be recoverable by the committee as though they were arrears of a tax due from the appellant. (6) If the committee fails to pay any costs awarded to an appellant within ten days after the date of the order for payment thereof, the officer awarding the costs may order the person having the custody of the balance of the municipal fund to pay the amount." 4. Thus, the short question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit challenging the assessment of the House Tax ? 5. This question also came up for determination before the Honble Apex Court in N.D.M.C. v. Satish Chand (Deceased) by Lr. Ram Chand, reported as (2004-1) Punjab Law Reporter 257, wherein their Lordships have held "that the provisions of appeal contained in Section 84(1) of the Act provide a complete remedy to a party aggrieved against the assessment and levy of tax. Section 86 provides that the remedy of appeal is the only remedy to a party to challenge assessment for purposes of property tax. No other remedy was available to a party in such circumstances. It follows that the remedy of civil suit is barred. 6. Section 86 provides that the remedy of appeal is the only remedy to a party to challenge assessment for purposes of property tax. No other remedy was available to a party in such circumstances. It follows that the remedy of civil suit is barred. 6. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.D.M.C. case (supra), it has to be held that the civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the assessment of the House Tax. Resultantly, the regular second appeal filed by the Municipal Committee, Kharar, is allowed and the judgment of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Kharar dated 30.11.1981 and the judgment of Add. District Judge, Ropar dated 7.8.1982, are set-aside. However, as the plaintiff-respondent was bona fidely pursuing his case before the Civil Court, therefore, he is granted three months time to prefer an appeal against the assessment of the House Tax which has been subject-matter of the suit and the appellant shall not raise the question of limitation. Appeal allowed.