JUDGMENT A.K. Rath, J. 1. What is the meaning of ‘entertained’ appearing in Section 61 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “OPDR Act”), is the seminal point that hinges for consideration of this Court. 2. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy in this writ application are as follows:- Certificate Case No.1 of 1993 was initiated by the Sub-Collector, Keonjhar, opposite party no.3, against the petitioner to recover an amount of Rs.1,18,361.79 on the ground that the petitioner, who is Ex-Nazir of Sub-Divisional Office, Anandapur misappropriated the Government money. The Certificate Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Keonjhar directed the petitioner to pay the above amount by 5.2.1994. Against the said order, the petitioner-CDr preferred Certificate Appeal Case No.05 of 1994 before the Additional District Magistrate, Keonjhar. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in O.J.C.No.4464 of 1990. Further, the maintainability of the certificate proceedings was also challenged before this Court in O.J.C.No.2744 of 1995. The writ applications were dismissed. While the matter stood thus, by order 19.6.2012, the Certificate Officer issued sale proclamation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the A.D.M., Keonjhar, which was registered as Appeal No.2 of 2012. By order dated 12.4.2013, the A.D.M., Keonjhar dismissed the said appeal. Against the said order, he filed Certificate Revision before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur on 18.8.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that till yet the revision petition filed by him has not been registered in view of the fact that the petitioner has not paid all amounts due under the certificate to the Certificate Officer and produced a certificate from the Certificate Officer showing such payment. 3. Heard Mr.P.K.Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.K.Muduli, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Section 61 of the O.P.D.R. Act reads as follows:- “61. 3. Heard Mr.P.K.Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.K.Muduli, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Section 61 of the O.P.D.R. Act reads as follows:- “61. Revision – An order passed in an appeal under Section 60 may be revised by:- (a) if the order was passed by an Additional District Magistrate or by a Collector, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner; (b) if the order was passed by a Revenue Divisional Commissioner, the Board of Revenue: Provided that where the certificate-debtor makes an application under this section for revision of any appellate order, no such application shall be entertained unless he has paid all amounts due under the certificate to the Certificate Officer, whether or not, under protest made in writing at the time of payment, and produces a certificate from the Certificate Officer showing such payment to have been made.” 5. The question, thus, arises as to whether the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur can refuse to register the case for non-payment of the amounts due under certificate to the Certificate Officer taking a cue from the words “no such application shall be entertained unless he has paid all amounts due under the certificate to the Certificate Officer” appearing in proviso to Section 61 of the O.P.D.R. Act. 6. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. In Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) I, Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, AIR 1968 SC 488 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to construe the meaning of the word ‘entertained’ in proviso to Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Court took the view that the word ‘entertain’ means “admit to consideration”. The Supreme Court while interpreting the word ‘entertained’ contained in Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the proviso thereto made a distinction between the expressions ‘appeal’ and ‘memorandum of appeal’. Section 9 contemplated that the appeal could not be entertained without the proof being given along with memorandum of appeal that the tax had been paid. The Supreme Court while interpreting the word ‘entertained’ contained in Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the proviso thereto made a distinction between the expressions ‘appeal’ and ‘memorandum of appeal’. Section 9 contemplated that the appeal could not be entertained without the proof being given along with memorandum of appeal that the tax had been paid. While dealing with the meaning of the word ‘entertained’ Hidayatullah, J. in paragraphs 7 and 10 of the judgment observed as under:- “(7) To begin with it must be noticed that the proviso merely requires that the appeal shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the amount of tax admitted by the appellant to be due. A question thus arises what is the meaning of the word ‘entertained’ in this context? Does it mean that no appeal shall be received or filed or does it mean that no appeal shall be admitted or heard and disposed of unless satisfactory proof is available? The dictionary meaning of the word ‘entertain’ was brought to our notice by the parties and both sides agreed that it means either ‘to deal with or admit to consideration’. We are also of the same opinion. The question, therefore, is at what stage can the appeal be said to be entertained for the purpose of the application of the proviso? Is it ‘entertained’ when it is filed or is it ‘entertained’ when it is admitted and the date is fixed for hearing or is it finally ‘entertained’ when it is heard and disposed of? Numerous cases exist in the law reports in which the word ‘entertained’ or similar cognate expressions have been interpreted by the courts. Some of them from the Allahabad High Court itself have been brought to our notice and we shall deal with them in due course. For the present, we must say that if the legislature intended that the word ‘file’ or ‘receive’ was to be used, there was no difficulty in using those words. In some of the statutes which were brought to our notice such expressions have in fact been used. (10)……..When the proviso speaks of the entertainment of the appeal, it means that the appeal such as was filed will not be admitted to consideration unless there is satisfactory proof available of the making of the deposit of admitted tax.” 7. In some of the statutes which were brought to our notice such expressions have in fact been used. (10)……..When the proviso speaks of the entertainment of the appeal, it means that the appeal such as was filed will not be admitted to consideration unless there is satisfactory proof available of the making of the deposit of admitted tax.” 7. In Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. Punnu Sahu, (1971) 3 SCC 124, the term ‘entertain’ as found in the proviso to Order XXI Rule 90 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) fell for consideration of the Supreme Court. It was held that the term ‘entertain’ in the said provision means “to adjudicate upon” or “to proceed to consider on merits” and did not mean “initiation of proceeding”. 8. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the cases cited (supra), the conclusion is irresistible that the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, who is the revisional authority, under Section 61 of the OPDR Act has no option but to register the case and assign the number. Failure to deposit the amount due under the certificate to the Certificate Officer and production of certificate from the Certificate Officer evidencing payment, the consequence will ensue i.e., the revision will not be admitted to consideration. Admission of the revision is subject to the condition that the same is free from defects. 9. On taking a holistic view of the matter, this Court directs the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur-opposite party no.1 to register the case and assign the number. The writ application is allowed. No costs.