Hemant Gupta JUDGMENT
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Leave granted.
1. The order of assessment dated 01.03.2013 and the demand for payment of property tax made on the Respondents was the subject matter of challenge in a civil suit filed before the High Court of Delhi. Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejected the plaint by holding that the suit was not maintainable. The appeals filed by the Respondents were allowed by a Division Bench. The judgment in the said civil suit was consequently set aside and the learned Single Judge was directed to decide the point of jurisdiction afresh on the basis of legal principles laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench. Aggrieved thereby, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter, 'the SDMC') has filed this appeal.
2. M/s. GPS Properties Pvt. Ltd. was the highest bidder in the auction of commercial plot Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of Shivaji Complex, District Centre, Raja Garden, New Delhi. Said property was allotted by the Slum & J.J. Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in favour of M/s. GPS Properties Pvt. Ltd. Approval for construction of a mall/commercial complex was granted by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, 'the DDA'). M/s. GPS Properties entered into a development agreement with M/s. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for construction of a mall/commercial complex and for sale of units therein. Occupancy certificate/completion certificate was granted by the DDA vide its letter dated 25.07.2008. The property was assessed for payment of taxes and a demand was raised pursuant to the assessment order. The Respondents approached the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter, 'the Tribunal') by fling an appeal Under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Act'), which was later withdrawn. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the assessment order dated 01.03.2013 and the warrants of attachment. The Appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit which was accepted by the learned Single Judge, who placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in NDMC v. Satish Chand MANU/SC/0703/2003 : (2003) 10 SCC 38 to hold that the civil suit was not maintainable.
3. The approach of the learned Single Judge was disapproved by the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge overlooked the distinction between an express bar of a civil suit and where there is no express bar but the remedy provided is onerous. The High Court further observed that the learned Single Judge failed to take into account the relevant factors to determine the maintainability of the civil suit. According to the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge had neither examined whether the remedy provided by the Statute was onerous nor determined whether the limited window for fling a civil suit, in spite of a bar, was available to the Respondents. The Division Bench remanded the matter back for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge who was directed to examine the facts of the case in ........