JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 23.08.2018 rendered by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 27 of 2016, the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 411 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") 2. Heard Mr. Unmesh D. Shukla, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Shaswat Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Maulin Raval, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurang Raval, learned advocate for the respondent. At the request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for its final disposal. 3. The short facts which arise in this appeal are as under- 3.1. It is the case of the appellant that it has a factory premises which is situated at Gota, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad being Revenue Survey No. 388 and Final Plot No. 38 of Town Planning Scheme No. 30. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant has constructed a factory premises upon the said land and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority has also issued a certificate of building use on 16.05.2008. It is the case of the appellant that it has also obtained all necessary licenses under the Factories Act, 1948 and has made overall investment of Rs. 100 crores. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent Corporation applied new formula but has wrongly classified the factory premises of the appellant as laboratory instead of factory and therefore, a wrong factor is applied while making assessment for the year 2016-2017. The record indicates that it was the case of the appellant that the respondent Corporation has wrongly assessed property in question as per factor 3(7), which should be F3(2). The appellant also filed objection to the same and as the same were rejected, the appellant filed Municipal Valuation Appeal as provided under section 406 of the Act. As the record indicates, one Nareshbhai Purandas Khemani came to be examined as witness of the appellant at exhibit 27. The appellant also filed objection to the same and as the same were rejected, the appellant filed Municipal Valuation Appeal as provided under section 406 of the Act. As the record indicates, one Nareshbhai Purandas Khemani came to be examined as witness of the appellant at exhibit 27. The appellant also adduced documentary evidence such as copy of the certificate of incorporation consequent of conversion at exhibit 28, copy of BU Permission of the appellant's company premises at exhibit 29, Copy of license to work as factory issued by the Directorate, Industrial Safety and Health, Gujarat State at exhibit 30, copy of the pan card of the appellant company at exhibit 31, copy of pan card of Nareshbhai Khemani, authorised person of the appellant company at exhibit 32, copy of resolution passed by board of directors of appellant company at exhibit 33, copy of driving license of Nareshkumar Khemani at exhibit 34, copy of membership certificate issued by the Federation of Indian Export Organisation at exhibit 35, copy of membership certificate issued by the export house, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, office of Joint Director of Foreign Trade at exhibit 36, copy of certificate issued by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board at exhibit 37, copy of provisional consent at exhibit 38, copy of challan for deposited money issued by Chief Inspector of Factory of Gujarat State, Ahmedabad at exhibit 39, photographs of the appellant company at exhibit 40, copy of application for factory licence at exhibit 41, copy of municipal tax of the appeal premises at exhibit 42, copy of receipt of the deposited amount in the Municipal Corporation at exhibit 43, copy of the written objection application against the assessment at exhibit 44, copy of reply of the objection application given by the Municipal Corporation at exhibit 45. The record however indicates that no evidence was adduced by the respondent Corporation. 3.2. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Small Causes Court came to the conclusion that the appellant has not been able to prove that the subject premises is used for manufacturing and processing and was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Small Causes Court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence on record. Mr. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Small Causes Court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence on record. Mr. Shukla also contended that the Small Causes Court has wrongly dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant and has misread the provisions of the Factories Act, BPMC Act as well as Indian Evidence Act. Mr. Shukla, referring to the documentary evidence, contended that the appellant has been granted license to work as factory by the Directorate, Industrial Safety and Health, Gujarat State, which is produced at exhibit 30. Mr. Shukla also referring to the certificate issued by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board at exhibit 37, contended that the evidence adduced and relied upon by the appellant proves beyond doubt that the premises in question is an industrial unit and factory and therefore, factor F3(3) would be applicable. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Dena Bank reported in 2004 (2) GLR 1117 , Mr. Shukla contended that the Reference Court has not appreciated the evidence has not followed the procedure as prescribed in the appellate rules. On the aforesaid ground, Mr. Shukla therefore contended that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the proceedings deserves to be remanded back to the Small Causes Court for its rehearing after properly appreciating the evidence on record. 5. Per contra, Mr. Raval has opposed the appeal. Mr. Raval contended that the Small Causes Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the factor F3(1) applies as the appellant has not been able to prove that the said premises is being used for manufacturing and processing unit. It was therefore contended that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. Upon considering the reasons given by the learned Small Causes Court, it appears that the learned Small Causes Court has not properly considered the documentary evidence which is on record and even the certificate issued by the respondent Corporation is not properly appreciated. 7. Upon considering the reasons given by the learned Small Causes Court, it appears that the learned Small Causes Court has not properly considered the documentary evidence which is on record and even the certificate issued by the respondent Corporation is not properly appreciated. It appears that having discussed the documentary evidence, the learned Small Causes Court has not examined the documents which were relied upon by the appellant, more particularly the license issued under the Factories Act, 1948, the building use certificate issued by AUDA and other documents in question before coming to the conclusion that factor F3(1) would apply. While appreciating the oral evidence, the learned Small Causes Court has wrongly discarded the documentary evidence which are relied upon by the appellant. Considering the ratio laid down by this Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra), the Small Causes Court has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Appeal Rules. While determining the appropriate factor, the Small Causes Court ought to have considered each document which has been relied upon by the appellant and then decide the nature of activity carried out by the appellant. The finding arrived at by the appellate court is based on non-consideration of relevant material. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2018 passed in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 27 of 2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside and its proceedings deserves to be remanded back to the Small Causes Court for its re-determination after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The appeal is therefore allowed and the proceedings of Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 27 of 2016 are remanded back to the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad for re-determination after proper appreciation of the evidence on record and pass a fresh judgment and order as observed in this order as expeditiously as possible. 9. As the main matter is disposed of, the civil application would also stands disposed of.