JUDGMENT : K.A. Puj, J. The petitioner - Jamnagar Municipal Corporation has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Jamnagar in application below Ex.16 in Regular Civil Suit No.624 of 1993 filed by the respondent - plaintiff. 2. This Court has issued rule on 28.4.2003 and ad-interim relief was granted in terms of para-8(C) whereby the further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.624 of 1993 were stayed. The rule was duly served on the respondent. Despite service of rule nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 3. Heard Mr. J.R. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. The facts of the present case are that the respondent - plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No.624 of 2003 for declaration and injunction against the present petitioner for issuance of property tax bill for the year 1988 to 1992. The prayer made in the said suit is that the assessment made in the year 1988 to 1992 of Rs.8,910/- is bad, illegal and against the provisions of law. In para-8 of the plaint, the averment was made that the cause of action arose by giving notice by the respondent to the petitioner on 27.10.1993 and demand notice dated 10.11.1993. 4. On service of summons in the said suit the petitioner filed its appearance and filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 at Ex.16 praying therein that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit as an appeal under Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial & Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'B.P.M.C. Act) is provided and without resorting to that appeal provision, straightway suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties rejected the said application vide his order dated 10.3.2003. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Mr. J.R. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code says that, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint is barred by any law, the plaint is required to be returned. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Mr. J.R. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code says that, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint is barred by any law, the plaint is required to be returned. In the present case, the suit is barred in view of the provision contained in Section 406 of the B.P.M.C. Act where appeal is provided against the assessment made by the Corporation. That remedy is not resorted to by the respondent and she has filed the suit which is also contrary to law and hence order passed below Ex.16 is required to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly indicates that, the Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. In the present case, the suit is barred in view of the provisions contained in Section 406 0f the B.P.M.C. Act. This aspect was not considered by the trial Court. In view of the provisions contained in Section 406 of the B.P.M.C. Act as well as Section 9 of the C.P.C. suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly observed in the order dated 10.3.2003 that on a close reading of Section 406 of the B.P.M.C. Act it appears that there is no clear cut bar of Civil Court. He has, however, failed to consider that when appeal is provided under the Statute, the suit is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the learned Judge has also wrongly observed in his order that, after reading the plaint and prayer of the present suit, it clearly appears that the plaintiff had challenged the assessment order during the year 1988-92 and prayed to declare that the said order is illegal. Mr. Nanavati, in support of his submission that the Suit is not maintainable, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.D.M.C. v. Satish Chand (deceased) by LR.Ram Chand, reported in 2003 AIR SCW 4541, wherein it is held that, a bar to file a civil suit may be express or implied. Mr. Nanavati, in support of his submission that the Suit is not maintainable, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.D.M.C. v. Satish Chand (deceased) by LR.Ram Chand, reported in 2003 AIR SCW 4541, wherein it is held that, a bar to file a civil suit may be express or implied. An express bar is where a statute itself contains a provision that the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred e.g., the bar contained in Section 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. An implied bar may arise when a statute provides a special remedy to an aggrieved party. Section 86 of the Act restrains a party from challenging assessment and levy of tax in any manner other than as provided under the Act. A provision like this is the implied bar envisaged in Section 9, C.P.C. against filing a Civil Suit. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the provisions contained in the Punjab Municipal Act as well as B.P.M.C. Act are more or less same. When Appeal is provided under Section 411 of B.P.M.C. ACT, it is an implied bar as contemplated under Section 9 C.P.C. He has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge below an application Ex.16 in Regular Civil Suit No.624 of 1993 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Having heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and having perused the order passed by the learned Civil Judge as well as considering the provisions contained in Sections 406 and 411 of the B.P.M.C. Act as well as Section 9 of the C.P.C. and having considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.D.M.C. v. Satish Chand (deceased) by LR.Ram Chand (Supra) the Court is of the view that the learned Civil Judge has committed a very serious error of law and facts while rejecting the petitioner's application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The suit filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred by the provisions of Sections 406 and 411 of B.P.M.C. Act as against the assessment made by the Corporation, the Appeal may be filed under Section 406 and against that order further Appeal is either filed before the District Court or before this Court. In any case, there is no provision to file Suit challenging the said assessment. In any case, there is no provision to file Suit challenging the said assessment. When this fact is pointed out by the petitioner by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 the learned Judge ought to have held that the Suit is barred by the provisions of law. Instead of that he had rejected the petitioner's application which is not justified either in law or on facts. 7. Since the impugned order suffers from the infirmity and though Suit is not maintainable the learned Judge has rejected the petitioner's application. The impugned order of the learned Civil Judge is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The learned Judge is hereby directed to return the plaint of the Civil Suit No.624 of 1993 forthwith. 8. Accordingly this petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition allowed.