BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected first appeals from orders raise a common question whether a civil suit lies for recovery of municipal toll tax. The Municipal Board of Muzaffarnagar filed in the Court of the Munsif, Muzaffarnagar two separate suits against Brij Bhushan Lal and Satya Prakash for the recovery of two sums as toll tax. In each case the defendant pleaded that no suit lies for the recovery of municipal toll tax. This contention raised in defence was accepted by the learned Munsif. He held that the civil suits were incompetent. Both the suits were, therefore, dismissed. The plaintiff appealed against the decision of the trial court. The two connected appeals were allowed by the II Addl. Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar. He was of the opinion that a civil suit for the recovery of toll tax is competent. The suits were, therefore, remanded to the trial court for decision on merits. The present first appeals are directed against the two orders of remand passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar.

(2.) The trial court relied upon a decision of Allahabad High Court in Municipal Board, Bareilly v/s. Abdul Aziz Khan ( : 1934 (4) AWR 314). In that case it was held that a suit for the recovery of octroi dues does not lie in a civil court.

(3.) Mr. K.C. Agarwal appearing for the plaintiff respondent pointed out that in Abdul Aziz Khan's case the suit related to octroi, whereas the present suits relate to toll tax. The position of the two taxes under the UP Municipalities Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) is not identical. S. 155 of the Act provides for penalty for evasion of octroi dues. There is no similar provision in the Act for imposing penalty for evasion of toll tax.