JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. Chetan Munnolli, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs. No representation on behalf of respondents. Perused the records. 2. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.17/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Gadag, dated 14.02.2006, whereby the First Appellate Court confirmed the orders passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gadag in O.S. No.46/2004, dated 23.01.2006, where under the suit came to be dismissed by answering preliminary issues against the plaintiffs. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under : 4. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.46/2004 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gadag challenging the resolution authorizing the President of the defendant-Municipal Council to carry out certain urgent works. 5. The President of the first defendant Municipal Council issued work orders to carry out public works involving expenditure to the tune of 30 lakhs without calling tender under Section 347 (3) of Karnataka Municipalities Act and bye laws. 6. The plaintiffs further contended that they being the residents of Gadag town, are the tax payers to the defendant and therefore, they had right/s to question the Municipal Council authorizing the President to issue work orders without calling for the tenders. 7. After service of the notice, the defendant- Municipal Council entered appearance and filed written statement, wherein, there is specific contention that the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to question the acts of the first defendant, inter alia taking a specific contention that the order passed by the Council is appealable order and whenever appeal is provided under the case itself, the plaintiffs have no rights to file the suit and as such, suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. Based on the rival contentions, the trial court raised the following issues. 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the resolution passed by defendant on 12/12/2002 is illegal? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendant is mis-utilising the public fund? 3. Whether the suit in present form is maintainable ? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed for ? 5. What order or decree? 9. Among the above issues, issue No.3 was with regard to the maintainability of the suit. 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendant is mis-utilising the public fund? 3. Whether the suit in present form is maintainable ? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed for ? 5. What order or decree? 9. Among the above issues, issue No.3 was with regard to the maintainability of the suit. As such, it was tried as preliminary issue. 10. Trial court after hearing the parties, answered issue No.3 against the plaintiffs and suit came to be dismissed. 11. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 23.01.2006, the plaintiffs have preferred the appeal in R.A. No.17/2006. 12. The First Appellate Court secured the trial court records, heard the parties and after perusing the order passed by the trial court and looking into the specific bar available under Karnataka Municipalities Act concurred with the finding of the trial court that suit was held not maintainable. 13. It is that judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal. 14. This appeal came to be admitted by order dated 31.03.2006 with the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the two courts below have erred in law in dismissing the suit as not maintainable by relying on certain provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964? 15. Heard Sri. Chetan Munnolli on behalf of Sri. C.H. Jadav, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs. On behalf of respondents, there is no representation. The Paper books were dispensed with by order dated 10.11.2011. This court perused the appeal papers as well as trial court records. 16. The relevant provisions of portion of the Karnataka Municipalities Act is culled out for the ready reference. 306. Deputy Commissioner s power of suspending execution of order, etc., of municipal councils. (1) If, in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, the execution of any order or resolution of a town municipal council, or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a town municipal council, is unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace, he may, by order in writing under his signature, suspend the execution or prohibit the doing thereof. 309. Commissioner s power in respect of city municipal councils. 309. Commissioner s power in respect of city municipal councils. In respect of city municipal councils the powers conferred by Sections 306, 307 and 308 shall be exercisable by the Commissioner and the provisions of the said sections shall mutatis mutandis apply to such city municipal councils and their councilors. 17. The learned counsel before the trial court also relied on the following decisions: 1. KLJ 1975(1) High Court of Karnataka Where the plaintiffs, who have no manner of right to the suit shops belonging to the Municipality, seek the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from occupying the shops leased to them on the ground that they should have been auctioned. Held as the plaintiffs had not acquired any present right to the suit shops, temporary injunction should not be granted. 2. AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT P-3187. 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 S.293 of the income Tax Act. 1961. An implied bar may arise when a statute provides a special remedy to an aggrieved party. S. 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 provisions like this is the implied bar envisaged in S.9 C.P.C. against filing a civil suit. 18. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the order passed by the trial court holding that there is a statutory remedy of appeal under the Act and as such, suit before the trial court was not maintainable. 19. In view of the clear statutory provisions providing an appeal for the actions of Municipal Council challenged before the Deputy commissioner as per Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and power vested with the Government to order enquiry into alleged illegalities under Section 310 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, the suit before the civil court was held not maintainable. Even though there is specific bar to file a suit, in view of the dictum in the case of N.D.M.C., V/s. Satish Chand (deceased) by L.R. Ram Chand, (2003) AIR SC 3187 relied on by the trial court, this court does not find any good reasons to further consider the substantial question of law raised in the second appeal. 20. Even though there is specific bar to file a suit, in view of the dictum in the case of N.D.M.C., V/s. Satish Chand (deceased) by L.R. Ram Chand, (2003) AIR SC 3187 relied on by the trial court, this court does not find any good reasons to further consider the substantial question of law raised in the second appeal. 20. No other grounds are urged in support of the appeal. As such, this court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court holding that the suit is not maintainable. 21. Under circumstances, inevitable conclusion that this court can reach is that the second appeal is merit less and thus liable to be dismissed. 22. Having said so, the appellants-plaintiffs are at liberty to get their grievances readdressed before the appropriate forum, needless to emphasise taking recourse to Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Further it is observed that dismissal of suit confirmed in first appeal and before this court shall not affect the merits of the matter. With the above observations, the following order is passed. ORDER Appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.