JUDGMENT: BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1) THIS first miscellaneous-appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for permanent injunction and is directed against the Order No. 9 dated 5th May, 2007 passed by the learned Trial Judge by which the said Court has allowed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-respondent thereby restraining the appellant from conducting any hearing in respect of Notice No. 01021400/ho/kmc and Notice no. 01021401/ho/kmc prior to the hearing of the earlier notice dated June 6, 2006 with a liberty given to the Corporation to pray for modification of the order after the conclusion of the hearing of the notice dated June 6, 2006. (2) BEING dissatisfied, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has come up with the present first miscellaneous-appeal. The respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Ninth bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, being Title Suit No. 160 of 2007, thereby praying for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from giving any effect or further effect to the notice bearing No. 01021400/ho/kmc and the form bearing Serial No. A0753525 as also the notice bearing No. 01021401/ho/kmc and the form bearing Serial No. A0753526 both dated January 4, 2007 which would take effect from the second quarter of 2003-2004 and the fourth quarter of 2006-2007 respectively, with regard to the premises No. 3a Humayun Place, kolkata- 700 087. (3) THE case made out by the respondent may be summed up thus: (i) The respondent is the owner of premises No. 3a, Humayun Place and the building is used by the respondent for its business and the amount which the said building might be reasonably expected to fetch on being let out from year to year had not been changed since last ten years. (ii) The last assessment of the said premises was done on December 6, 2000 with effect from the second quarter of 1997-98, and the annual valuation had been fixed at Rs. 5,01,130/ -. In fact, the said valuation was intimated to the plaintiff by the Corporation by a notice issued under Section 188 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and against the said order, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal to the municipal Assessment Tribunal under Section 189 of the Calcutta municipal Corporation Act which was pending. 5,01,130/ -. In fact, the said valuation was intimated to the plaintiff by the Corporation by a notice issued under Section 188 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act and against the said order, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal to the municipal Assessment Tribunal under Section 189 of the Calcutta municipal Corporation Act which was pending. (iii) The plaintiff received a notice dated June 6, 2006 from the Kolkata municipal Corporation assessing the said premises at an annual valuation of Rs. 6,68,990/-with effect from the second quarter of 20032004. By the said notice, the Corporation informed the plaintiff that it had a right to submit a written objection against the said valuation and accordingly, fixed September 18, 2006 for hearing of the objection, if any, filed by the plaintiff. The said hearing was postponed from time to time and was fixed on 23rd April, 2007 for hearing of the plaintiffs objection. (iv) The plaintiff, in the meantime, was shocked and surprised to receive a notice dated January 4, 2007 bearing No. 01021400/ho/kmc and the form bearing serial No. A0753525 by which the plaintiff was intimated that the annual valuation of the said premises had been assessed at rs. 13,15,100/- with effect from second quarter of 20032004 and that the plaintiff was entitled to submit the written objection against the said valuation and January 29, 2007 was fixed for hearing of the objection, if any, filed by the plaintiff. (v) The plaintiff further received a notice dated January 4, 2007 bearing no. 01021401/ho/kmc and the form bearing serial No. A0753526 by which the plaintiff was informed by the respondent that the annual valuation of the said premises had been assessed at Rs. 36,94,460/ with effect from the fourth quarter of 2006-2007 and that it was entitled to submit written objection against the said valuation and January 29, 2007 was fixed for hearing of the objection, if any, by the plaintiff. (vi) According to the plaintiff, the defendant was not entitled to issue the aforesaid notice since two proceedings were pending for the period from the second quarter of 20032004 and such assessment was required by law to remain in force for a period of six years as provided in Section 179 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. (vi) According to the plaintiff, the defendant was not entitled to issue the aforesaid notice since two proceedings were pending for the period from the second quarter of 20032004 and such assessment was required by law to remain in force for a period of six years as provided in Section 179 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. (4) IN connection with the aforesaid suit, on the selfsame allegation, the plaintiff-respondent came up with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the Kolkata Municipal Corporation from giving any effect or further effect to those two notices dated January 4, 2007. (5) THE application for injunction was contested by the Kolkata Municipal corporation by filing affidavit-in-opposition thereby denying the material allegations made in the application for injunction and the objection taken by the defendant may be summed up thus: (a) The premises, for a considerable period had been used as a cinema hall, popularly known as Light House Cinema Hall. The proposal had been made for general revaluation with effect from second quarter of 2003-2004 and intermediate valuation, with effect from fourth quarter of 2006-2007, after cancellation of G. R. due to shockingly low valuation in terms of mayors guideline and change of nature of the user under Section 180 (2) (ii) and 192 (1) (iv) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. (b) The plaintiff received a notice, attended the hearing on several occasions but prayed for adjournment by taking the plea that one Kamal chakraborty, their authorized representative, would be unable to attend, as he was ill. The plaintiff did not agitate any other point raising any question about the legality of the notice or the cancellation of valuation before the Hearing Officer. (c) The Hearing Officer, in response to the said adjournment application, was pleased to allow adjournment at least on two occasions i.e. on 5th March, 2007 and 19th March, 2007, but the plaintiff again filed the application for adjournment, which was rejected by the Hearing Officer, and an order was passed. (v) The plaintiff further received a notice dated January 4, 2007 bearing no. 01021401/ho/kmc and the form bearing serial No. A0753526 by which the plaintiff was informed by the respondent that the annual valuation of the said premises had been assessed at Rs. (v) The plaintiff further received a notice dated January 4, 2007 bearing no. 01021401/ho/kmc and the form bearing serial No. A0753526 by which the plaintiff was informed by the respondent that the annual valuation of the said premises had been assessed at Rs. 36,94,460/ with effect from the fourth quarter of 2006-2007 and that it was entitled to submit written objection against the said valuation and January 29, 2007 was fixed for hearing of the objection, if any, by the plaintiff. (vi) According to the plaintiff, the defendant was not entitled to issue the aforesaid notice since two proceedings were pending for the period from the second quarter of 20032004 and such assessment was required by law to remain in force for a period of six years as provided in Section 179 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. (4) IN connection with the aforesaid suit, on the selfsame allegation, the plaintiff-respondent came up with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the Kolkata Municipal Corporation from giving any effect or further effect to those two notices dated January 4, 2007. (5) THE application for injunction was contested by the Kolkata Municipal corporation by filing affidavit-in-opposition thereby denying the material allegations made in the application for injunction and the objection taken by the defendant may be summed up thus: (a) The premises, for a considerable period had been used as a cinema hall, popularly known as Light House Cinema Hall. The proposal had been made for general revaluation with effect from second quarter of 2003-2004 and intermediate valuation, with effect from fourth quarter of 2006-2007, after cancellation of G. R. due to shockingly low valuation in terms of mayors guideline and change of nature of the user under Section 180 (2) (ii) and 192 (1) (iv) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. (b) The plaintiff received a notice, attended the hearing on several occasions but prayed for adjournment by taking the plea that one Kamal chakraborty, their authorized representative, would be unable to attend, as he was ill. The plaintiff did not agitate any other point raising any question about the legality of the notice or the cancellation of valuation before the Hearing Officer. The plaintiff did not agitate any other point raising any question about the legality of the notice or the cancellation of valuation before the Hearing Officer. (c) The Hearing Officer, in response to the said adjournment application, was pleased to allow adjournment at least on two occasions i.e. on 5th March, 2007 and 19th March, 2007, but the plaintiff again filed the application for adjournment, which was rejected by the Hearing Officer, and an order was passed. (d) Apart from the aforesaid fact, one Smt. Juthi Banerjee, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, wrote a letter addressed to the Hearing officer disclosing certain facts including pendency of civil suit before the city Civil Court at Calcutta and that appeal being preferred before the honble High Court. As, there was no stay order, the Hearing Officer was pleased to pass the said order under Section 188 of the Kolkata Municipal corporation Act. (e) The plaintiff, in spite of having opportunity to submit their return in yellow form, did not avail of the opportunity to disclose all the material facts. During the second quarter of 2003-2004, the premises had been used as a shopping mall as well as a cinema hall and sizeable portion of 7000 sq. ft. (approx) of the said premises had been used as shopping mall and during second quarter of 2003-2004, the mode of user had been changed. For ascertaining the annual valuation of the cinema hall, there is a clear-cut prescription in the Statute but in that event, the Kolkata Municipal corporation authority has to ascertain the notional value of the commercial activity undertaken by the owner considering the area, the locality and congenial atmosphere of market. This revaluation had been sought for and the plaintiff was given opportunity to controvert all the arguments placed by the local authority before the Hearing Officer. (f) Unfortunately, without availing the opportunity given, the plaintiff prayed for adjournment on several occasions and ultimately, filed the suit. The plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to get any order of injunction. As pointed out earlier, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the application and granted the temporary injunction as mentioned above. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal. The plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to get any order of injunction. As pointed out earlier, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the application and granted the temporary injunction as mentioned above. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal. (6) ON the date fixed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service and accordingly, after hearing the learned advocate for the appellant, we concluded the hearing and reserved our judgment. On the next day, Mr Mantosh, the learned advocate mentioned the matter and prayed for giving him an opportunity to give written submission on behalf of his client. We allowed such prayer with a direction to serve a copy of the submission to the learned advocate for the appellant. Accordingly, such written submission has been given by the respondent. (7) THE only question that arises for determination in this appeal was whether the learned Trial Judge, in the facts of the present case, was justified in passing an order of injunction in restraining the Corporation from proceeding with the modified notice till the disposal of the earlier notice of revaluation notwithstanding the fact that the earlier notice was withdrawn by the corporation. (8) MR Chatterjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before us that the Kolkata Municipal corporation Act permits the Commissioner to issue fresh notice of assessment if any mistake is found in the earlier one and thus, his client after cancelling the previous notice issued a fresh notice inviting objection from the respondent against the proposed enhanced valuation and there was no wrong in issuing such notice. According to Mr Chatterjee, the learned Trial Judge erred in law in passing the order impugned by not following the well-accepted principles, which should be followed in disposing of this type of a prayer. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order impugned. (9) FROM the written note of submission given by the respondent it appears that its grievance is that no notice cancelling the previous proposal was ever issued or served upon it and therefore, the initiation of the fresh proceeding in spite of pendency of the earlier one was bad and in such a situation, the learned trial Judge rightly passed the order impugned. (10) IN our view, once the Corporation has made it clear that it has cancelled the previous notice and it proposes to proceed with the second one, there is no scope of any investigation as to whether the order cancelling the previous notice has been received by the respondent or not. After such declaration by the corporation, a Court cannot force it to proceed with such cancelled notice by way of an interlocutory injunction. If according to the respondent, the Corporation has no power to issue the second notice after cancelling the earlier one even on the ground of lack of any material information, it will be free to raise such question before the appropriate forum when after the conclusion of the proceedings arising out of the second notice, the valuation of the premises would be refixed. There is even a provision of appeal under the Statute against final assessment and in such an appeal, the legality of the notice is open to challenge. We, thus, find that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in restraining the corporation from proceeding with the second notice and compelling it to proceed with the cancelled notice. (11) THE balance of convenience and inconvenience was in favour of refusing the prayer of injunction and it could not be said that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the injunction was not granted. The grant of injunction in this type of matter amounts to abuse of due process of law inasmuch as the Corporation has given the respondent fullest opportunity of raising all the lawful objections against the proposed revaluation. (12) WE, thus, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal. We make it clear that we have, in this appeal against the interlocutory order, not gone into the merit of the suit. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.