JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 28 dated 30th July, 2004 passed by the learned IXth Bench of the City Civil Court in Title Suit No. 657 of 2002 by which the defendants' application for rejection of plaint under Order VII rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. ( 2 ) THE defendant is the petitioner before this Court. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit claiming the following reliefs :- "a) A decree of declaration that the demand as reflected in the letter of Intimation number C. M. C. 0000 142758l dated 13th March, 2002 and notice being Memo No. DIS/dmc/2002 dated 12. 4. 2002 is bad and untenable in the eye of law and the defendant authorities and each of them have no right or authority to proceed on the basis of such demand; b) A decree of declaration that the defendant authorities and each one of them have no right or authority to disconnect the Water supply line of Premises No. 3b, Darpanarayan Tagore Street, Calcutta or to seal the tubewell if any in the said premises on the basis of non- payment of the demand or contained in Letter of Intimation number c. M. C. 0000142758l dated 13th March, 2002 and/or in the notice being Memo No. DIS/dmc/2002 dated 12th April, 2002 ; c) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and subordinates and each one of them from taking any steps and/or further steps for recovery of the amount of demand as contained in Letter of Intimation No. C. M. C. 0000142758l dated 13th March, 2002 and/or the notice being Memo No. DIS/dmc/2002 dated 12th April, 2002 and further restraining the defendants, their men, agents and subordinates and each one of them from disconnecting the connection of supply of Water and/or from sealing the deep tubewell, if any, to or at premises No. 3b, Darpanarayan tagore Street, Kolkata on tbe basis of the demands contained in l. O. T No. C. M. C. 0000142758l dated 13th March, 2002 and/or the notice being Memo No. DIS/dmc/2002 dated 12th April, 2002 ; d) Costs ; e) Such further or other relief or reliefs as the plaintiff may be entitled to in law or equity. " ( 4 ) THE plaint case, in short, is as follows :- pursuant to the application made by the plaintiffs in response to a Waiver Scheme announced by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the Municipal authority by its letter of intimation demanded a sum of rs. 9,18,073/- from the plaintiffs on account of the arrear dues towards the rates and taxes of the premises No. 3b, Darpanarayan Tagore street, Kolkata. ( 5 ) ON receipt of the said letter of intimation the plaintiffs found that the demand which was made by the Corporation includes certain disputed bill amount corresponding to different assessment period, though the valuation of the said premises for those assessment periods, has not yet attained its finality because of the pendency of three Municipal appeals before the Tribunal. The plaintiff claims that the valuation and/or assessment which is under challenge before the Tribunal attains its finality only after the disposal of the appeal and the Municipal authority can raise bill and/or demand payment by following the ultimate decision in the appeal. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the Municipal authority is not vested with the power to raise any demand with regard to the disputed valuation and/or assessment during the pendency of the appeal. But since the Municipal authority, in fact, did so in violation of the provision contained in the Koikata municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the plaintiffs claim that the demand so made by the Kolkata Municipal corporation by their letter of intimation, is illegal. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the plaintiff has also challenged the notice qf disconnection of water supply which was issued by the Municipal authorities as a consequence of non-payment of the illegal demand of the Corporation on account of alleged arrear rates and taxes of the said premises. Therefore, a decree for permanent injunction has also been sought for in the said suit. Therefore, a decree for permanent injunction has also been sought for in the said suit. ( 8 ) IN such a suit the defendant has filed an application under Order vii Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on two fold grounds ; firstly, on the ground that the suit is barred for non-service of notice under Section 586 of the said Act, and secondly, on the ground that the suit is also barred by law in view of the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil court under the provision of Section 189 (9) of the said Act. ( 9 ) SUCH an application was rejected by the learned trial Judge by holding, inter alia, that for maintaining an action against the Municipal authority, no notice under Section 586 of the said Act is necessary when the suit is filed by challenging an action of the Corporation which is not in conformity with the Statute. The learned trial Judge also held that since the valuation and/or assessment itself is not under challenge in this suit, the suit is not barred under the provision of Section 189 (9) of the said Act ( 10 ) SUCH an order is under challenge before this Court in this application. ( 11 ) MR. Das Adhikary, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing in support of this application, submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of the provision of Section 586 of the said Act. By referring to the provision, as contained in Section 586 of the said Act, Mr. Das Adhikary submitted that in all suits against the Corporation excepting the suits within the frame of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, notice under Section 586 (1) is compulsory. ( 12 ) MR. Das Adhikary submitted that this is really a suit for declaration within the scheme of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act wherein injunction was sought for by way of incidental and/or consequential reliefs. Accordingly, mr. Das Adhikary submitted that the exclusion which has been provided in section 586 (4) of the said Act for the suits under Section 38 of the Specific relief Act, is not attracted in the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, Mr. Accordingly, mr. Das Adhikary submitted that the exclusion which has been provided in section 586 (4) of the said Act for the suits under Section 38 of the Specific relief Act, is not attracted in the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, Mr. Das adhikary contended that it is a fit case for rejection of plaint for want of notice of suit under Section 586 (1) of the said Act. ( 13 ) BY referring to the plaint itself, Mr. Das Adhikary pointed out that the plaint is silent about the service of such notice upon the Municipal authority. Accordingly, Mr. Das Adhikary submitted that the plaint should be rejected as the institution of the said suit in the absence of such notice is prohibited under section 586 (1) of the said Act. ( 14 ) BY referring to Section 189 (9) of the said Act, Mr. Das Adhikary further submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit challenging either the valuation and/or assessment of any premises. Accordingly, the suit is also barred under the provision of Section 189 (9) of the said Act. ( 15 ) THUS, Mr. Das Adhikary submitted that the learned trial Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the petitioners' application under order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code without really appreciating the scope and ambit of the relevant provision of the said statute and by wrongly applying the principles as laid down in the decision in the case of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta v. S. Ghosh reported in 1983 (1) CHN 1 . ( 16 ) MR. Das Adhikary further submitted that the learned trial Judge also erred in holding that the unreported decision which was cited by the petitioners before the Court below is not applicable in the facts of the instant case. ( 17 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite parties, supported the order impugned by relying upon the decision in the case of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta v. S. Ghosh (supra ). Mr. Banerjee submitted that plain reading of the plaint will show that neither the assessment nor the valuation is under challege in the suit. According to Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite parties, supported the order impugned by relying upon the decision in the case of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta v. S. Ghosh (supra ). Mr. Banerjee submitted that plain reading of the plaint will show that neither the assessment nor the valuation is under challege in the suit. According to Mr. Banerjee since neither valuation nor the assessment is under challenge in the suit, the provision, as contained in Section 189 (9) of the said Act cannot stand in the way of entertaining the suit. ( 18 ) MR. Banerjee further submitted that it is settled principle of law that no notice as contemplated under Section 586 of the said Act would be necessary when the acts of the Corporation or the authority concerned is alleged to be ultra vires or dehors the particular statute. By referring to various paragraphs of the plaint, Mr. Banerjee submitted that here the challenge is with regard to the demand which the Corporation raised pursuant to the request made by the plaintiffs by submitting to the Waiver scheme announced by the Municipal authority. Mr. Banerjee further pointed out that since the Municipal authority included the disputed bill amount within its claim pending disposal of the appeals before the Municipal Tribunal, the bills so raised are clearly contrary to the statute which provides that such bills can only be raised after finalization of the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, Mr. Banerjee submitted that even assuming that this is not a suit for injunction simpliciter within the scheme of Section 38 of the Specific Relief act, still then since the action of the Municipal authority dehoring the statute, is under challenge in the suit, no notice is necessary for maintaining such a suit before the Civil Court. ( 19 ) MR. Banerjee further submitted that when an injunction has been sought for by way of an emergent relief to resist disconnection of the water supply by such a short notice, no notice is required to be served upon the municipal authority under Section 586 (1) of the said Act. ( 20 ) HEARD the learned Advocates of the respective parties and considered the materials-on-record. ( 21 ) IT is settled law that for consideration of the defendants' prayer for rejection of the plaint nothing else save and except the plaint itself can be looked into. ( 20 ) HEARD the learned Advocates of the respective parties and considered the materials-on-record. ( 21 ) IT is settled law that for consideration of the defendants' prayer for rejection of the plaint nothing else save and except the plaint itself can be looked into. The plain reading of the plaint shows that here in the instant case, the plaintiff has challenged the validity and/or legality of the claim which was demanded from the petitioners through letter of intimation. ( 22 ) IN this regard, reference may be made to the provision contained in Section 189 (10) of the said Act which runs as follows :- "189 (10 ). The valuation fixed after disposal of the appeal under this section shall take effect from the quarter in which such valuation would have taken effect and shall continue to remain in force during the period such valuation would have remained in force, had no appeal been filed. " ( 23 ) THE said provision makes it clear that the valuation attains its finality only after disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal and not prior to that Since three appeals are pending for disposal before the Municipal tribunal concerning valuation of the said premises for different period of assessments, the Municipal authority cannot raise any demand on account of the rates and taxes of the premises on the basis of the disputed valuation thus, when such a challenge has been thrown in the plaint, it is apparent that the action of the Municipal authority dehoring such statute has been challenged in the suit. ( 24 ) IN such view of the matter, even without entering into the nicety of the argument made by Mr. Das Adhikary, as to whether the suit is within the frame of Section 34 or Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, this Court by relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Trustees for the improvement of Calcutta v. S. Ghosh (supra) holds that the plaint cannot be rejected under the provision of Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the nature of challenge thrown in the suit, as indicated above. ( 25 ) I, however, cannot accept the submission of Mr. ( 25 ) I, however, cannot accept the submission of Mr. Das Adhikary to the effect that principle as laid down in the case of Trustees for the Improvement of calcutta v. S. Ghosh (supra) has no application in the facts of the instant case, as I find that in Paragraph 7 of the said decision it has been categorically held by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court that no notice would be necessary when the act of the Corporation or the authority concerned is alleged to be ultra vires or dehors the particular statute. ( 26 ) HERE in the instant case, I have already indicated above that certain acts of the Municipal authority were alleged to have been done dehoring the particular provision of the statute and accordingly by relying upon the said decision, I hold that the suit is not barred for want of notice under Section 586 (1) of the said Act. ( 27 ) I also do not find any substance in the other submission of Mr. Das adhikary that the suit is also barred under the provision of Section 189 (9) of the said Act, inasmuch as plain reading of the plaint shows that neither the valuation of the premises nor the assessment thereof for any particular year is under challenge. Since neither the valuation nor the assessment is under challenge in the suit, the prohibition, as contained in Section 189 (9) is not attracted in the instant case. ( 28 ) THAT apart, the plaint case shows that the demand made by the corporation pursuant to the approach made by the petitioners on the basis of a waiver Scheme is under challenge. I do not find any provision under the said act under which such Waiver Scheme was announced. This shows that such announcement was made on the basis of any administrative decision of the municipal authority unconnected the provision contained in the said Act. Thus, if any challenge is made with regard to the process connected with the Waiver scheme, the plaint, wherein such challenge has been made, cannot be rejected either on the ground of want of notice under Section 586 (1) or on the ground of bar of jurisdiction created under Section 189 (9) of the said Act. ( 29 ) IN such view of the matter, I find no substance in the submissions of mr. Das Adhikary. ( 29 ) IN such view of the matter, I find no substance in the submissions of mr. Das Adhikary. I also agree with the learned trial Judge that the unreported decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of The Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Crianda Properties Private Limited in C. O. No. 1470 of 2004 which was cited by Mr. Das Adhikary has no application in the facts of the instant case, as the said decision was arrived at in a set of facts which is not identical to the facts in hand of the present case. ( 30 ) THUS, I find no illegality and/or irregularity with the finding of the learned trial Judge. Accordingly, I hold that no interference is necessary with the order impugned in the facts of the instant case. The revisional application, thus, stands rejected. Later-Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the requisite formalities.