Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) This is an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) for dismissal of the suit. It appears that the plaintiff filed a declaratory suit as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. The following prayers have been made in the plaint: - (a) Declaration that the impugned notice being No. C/X5/107 dated 13.2.93 issued by the defendants is wrongful, illegal, arbitrary and not enforceable and consequently the defendants are stopped from enforcing the same and the same is liable to be set aside and/or quashed; (b) Declaration that the bill raised at the annual valuation of Rs. 2,37,000/- for the period from 1st October, 1990 to 4th quarter, 1994 is apparently unlawful, illegal and should be cancelled and revised bill in terms of the annual valuation fixed by the defendants. Hearing Officer dated 27.2.1989 be issued. (c) Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to consider the objection filed by the plaintiff with respect to the annual valuation in terms of the notice dated 1st March, 1994 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. (d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from giving any effect or further effect to the notice dated February 13,1997; (e) Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to adjust a sum of Rs. 5.15 lacs paid on ad hoc basis against the dues and to raise the revised bills; (f) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from demanding any amount as claimed in the said notice dated 13th February, 1997 or at all; (g) Declaration that the impugned notice dated 13th February, 1997 be adjudged void, delivered upon and cancelled.
(2.) The plaintiff has filed this suit inter alia on the ground of determination of annual value in respect of the premises No.16, Bon Field Lane, Kolkata. It is necessary that a suit if filed by the plaintiff, has to be filed after serving a notice under Section 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Section 586 of the relevant Act states as follows :- "Section 586. Notice, limitation and tender of amends in suits against the Corporation etc.-(1) No suit shall be instituted in any court having jurisdiction against any Municipal Authority or any officer or employee of the Corporation or any person acting under the direction of any Municipal Authority or any officer or employee of the Corporation in respect of any Act or the Rules or the regulations made thereunder, until the expiration of one month next after a notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office or the residence of such officer or employee or. person, stating- (a) the cause of action; (b) the name and residence of the intending plaintiff, and (c) the relief which such plaintiff claims. (2) Every such suit shall be commenced within four months next after accrual of the cause of action, and the plaint therein shall contain a statement that a notice has been delivered or left as required by sub-sections (1) and (3) if the Municipal Authority, at the office of which, or the officer or the person acting under the direction of any Municipal Authority or employee of the Corporation, at the office or the residence of whom, a notice has been delivered or left under section (1), satisfied the court having jurisdiction that the relief claimed was tendered to the plaintiff before the institution of the suit, the suit shall be dismissed and (4) Nothing in the foregoing sub-section 38 of the Act shall apply to any suit instituted under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963."
(3.) It is a fact that the said section has a mandatory section as has been pointed out before me by Mr. Ashoke Kumar Das Adhikari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the C.M.C.;