Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1591 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Ved Parkash

2011-08-18

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: (O&M) - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Jind by which an application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) for condonation of delay of 569 days in filing of the appeal has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the present Civil Suit No.213 on 22.11.2001 seeking declaration to the effect that order dated 30.3.1998 and order dated 7.11.2000 passed by the Collector, Narwana are null and void and not binding his rights. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he had purchased land measuring 8 kanal 10 marlas vide sale deed No.848 dated 13.3.1996 registered by the Registrar of Delhi for a sale consideration settled between the plaintiff and the vendor. The plaintiff purchased the land for a consideration of Rs.2,17,000, paid stamp duty of Rs.6510/-and got registered the sale deed. Defendants passed an order dated 30.3.1998 in the case file No.139 on 13.3.1998 and order dated 17.11.2000 illegally and without any notice to the plaintiff, on the basis of munadi, under Section 47A of the Stamp Act on the basis of which the value of land has been assessed at Rs.50,000/- and has sought a recovery of Rs.71474/-. The suit was filed against the State of Haryana through Collectorcum- SDO (Civil) Narwana and AC IInd Grade (Tehsildar) Narwana. On notice, the defendants appeared before the Court below, contested the suit and alleged that as per Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Government of Haryana is entitled to recover stamp duty and the order of recovery has been passed as per rules. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after recording evidence learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 01.12.2007, decreed the suit to the effect that order dated 30.3.1998 and 7.11.2000 are illegal, null and void and defendants were restrained from recovering the alleged deficient Stamp Duty of Rs.71,474/- from the plaintiff. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after recording evidence learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 01.12.2007, decreed the suit to the effect that order dated 30.3.1998 and 7.11.2000 are illegal, null and void and defendants were restrained from recovering the alleged deficient Stamp Duty of Rs.71,474/- from the plaintiff. 3. The appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 1.12.2007, could have been filed within 30 days i.e upto 30.12.2007 but admittedly certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied on 15.7.2009 and thereafter the appeal was filed after a delay of 569 days, along with an application under Section 5 of the Act in which reason was assigned by the petitioners that suit was decided by the Court of Sh. Hukam Singh, Civil Judge (JD), Narwana vide his judgment and decree dated 1.12.2007, the limitation to file appeal was upto 30.12.2007 but the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation as the then official, due to heavy load of work, could not pursue the matter and the fact that the case has been decided, slipped away from his mind and the matter came to the notice of the applicant when the respondent-plaintiff applied for refund of the amount which was deposited by him in the Govt. Treasury after admitting deficiency in stamp duty on the sale deed No.848 dated 13.3.1996. The applicant when came to know about this fact, directed the officials to apply for certified copy of the judgment and decree, which was applied on 15.7.2009. 4. The reasons assigned by the petitioners in the aforesaid application could not be accepted by this Court because it cannot be believed that two officers, namely, the SDM and the Tehsildar would forget about the case which has been decided against the State and would not even apply for the certified copy for a period over more than 1½ years. 5. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G. Haryana, while arguing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that so far no action has been taken against any official who are responsible for the loss having been caused to the State. 6. 5. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G. Haryana, while arguing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that so far no action has been taken against any official who are responsible for the loss having been caused to the State. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the State/petitioners, I am of the view that no sufficient reason has been assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioners to condone the delay, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. However, before parting with this order, I would like to add that the defendants in the suit are the senior functionaries of the State of Haryana who could not be allowed to allege that they had forgotten about the case due to heavy load of work. Therefore, the Chief Secretary of Haryana is directed to take cognizance in the matter and after holding a departmental enquiry fix the liability of the officers, who are responsible in not filing the appeal in time before the Court below and if they are found to be guilty, they should be penalized in accordance with law. The whole exercise should be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the enquiry report and action taken thereon be placed on record of this case. Registry is directed to list this case before the Court after the report is produced for its perusal. 7. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this order to Chief Secretary, Haryana for compliance of the order. ------------