S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE controversy in appeal here is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant an injunction to the Plaintiff seeking to restrain the Municipal Committee from recovering house -tax, as assessed, in respect of a shop situated in Bhatinda in the context of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 86 is in the following terms: 86. (1) No objection shall be taken to any valuation or assessment, nor shall the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned, in any other manner or by any other authority, than is provided in this Act. (2) No refund of any tax shall be claimable by any person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder.
(2.) THE power to revise the valuation and assessment and the assessment list as conferred by Sections 65 and 67 of, the Act has in terms of Section 4(b)(ii) of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931, to be exercised by a sub -committee consisting of the Executive Officer and two members of the Municipal Committee appointed for this purpose. In the present case, the impugned order Exhibit P. 5 of March 31, 1981, admittedly bears the signatures of only two members of the Municipal Committee, but not the Executive Officer. This being so, on the face of it, it was not a valid order, not having been passed by the competent authority and the demand for house -tax thereunder was, thus, not legal. Counsel for the Municipal Committee, Mr. T.S. Doabia, however, sought to contend that by virtue of the provisions of Section 84 and the bar contained in Section 86 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood barred and the remedy for the Plaintiff thus lay only under the Act. Cited in support here was the judgment of this Court in Romesh Kumar and Ors. v. The Municipal Committee Gurdaspur : AIR 1981 P&H 295, where it was held that Sections 84 and 86 of the Act bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters of assessment and computation of house -tax under Section 61(1)(a) of the said Act.
(3.) A reading of Romesh Kumar's case (supra), would show that it was founded upon the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee Chheharta : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1250, where Sarkaria, J. speaking for the Bench observed: It is well -settled that where a Revenue Statute provided for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular form, in a particular way, it must be sought in that form and in that manner, and all other forms and modes of seeking it are excluded. Construed in the light of this principle, it is clear that Sections 84 and 86 of the Municipal Act bar, by inevitable implication, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court where the grievance of the party relates to an assessment or the principle of assessment under this Act. It was held that in making the assessment in that case, the Municipal Committee had acted "under the Act" and it followed, therefore, that the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit was barred.;