S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of the present petition, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders which are dated 7.11.1996 and 21.9.1996 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad and Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad respectively. The District Judge, Allahabad by his order dated 7.11.1996 dismissed second appeal being No. 275 of 1996 preferred by the petitioners holding that the . appeal was not maintainable. The aforestated second appeal stemmed from the order dated 21.9.1996 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court in mutation appeal No. 286 of 1989 by which amendment/substitution applications 28C and 29C filed by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17 and under Order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C. at the appellate stage.
(2.) It would transpire from a perusal of the record that one Devi Prasad was arrayed as a party respondent No. 1 in the memo of appeal. By means of the amendment application 28C, the petitioner desired to re-christen the description of Devi Prasad as Bairagi/Sanyasi, Chela of Smt. Ram Devi, Bairagini. Subsequently, during the pendency of the said application 28C, Devi Prasad Shukla met his natural end and an application 29C came to be moved attended with the prayer that the name of Devi Prasad Shukla be inked out from the array of the parties. Since the second appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 476 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 has been dismissed on ground of being not maintainable, it would not be in the fitness of things to traverse upon the correctness of the order dated 21.9.1996. for in case, it is held that the second appeal was maintainable, the mater will have to be relegated to the District Judge for decision of the second appeal on merits in accordance with law, Accordingly, counsel for the parties have been heard.
(3.) The petitioners herein applied for mutation of their names in the Municipal records in place of late Shitla Prasad Shukla which was objected to by the contesting respondents. The mutation application, it transpires, was rejected whereupon an appeal was preferred by the petitioners under Section 472 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (In short the 'Adhiniyam') and. it was during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioners moved two applications i.e.. 28C and 29C which were rejected by the Additional Judge. Small Causes Court, Allahabad vide order dated 21.9.1996. It has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order appealed against under Section 472 did not come within the purview of Section 472 and hence the second appeal under Section 476 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam too would not be maintainable and the learned District Judge was justified in rejecting the appeal as not maintainable. Section 472 of the Adhiniyam which provides for an appeal, is excerpted below : "472. Appeals when and to whom to lie.--(1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any annual value or tax filed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge : Provided that any such appeal pending at any stage before the Judge may be transferred by the District Judge for hearing and disposal, to any Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes or Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge having jurisdiction in the city. (2) No such appeal shall be heard unless : (a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint ; (b) in the case of an appeal against an annual value an objection has previously been made and has been disposed of under Section 209; (c) in the case of an appeal against any tax in respect of which provision exists under this Act for an objection to be made to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari against the demand, such objection has previously been made and disposed of; (d) in the case of an appeal against any amendment or alteration made in the assessment list for properly taxes under sub-section (1) of Section 213. an objection has been made in pursuance of a notice Issued under the proviso to the said sub-section and such objection has been disposed of ; (e) In the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against an annual value after a bill for any property tax assessed upon such value has been presented to the appellant, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari.";