Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 26 (AP)

Akkeli Rama Krishna v. B. Muntaz Begum

2019-02-20

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2019
ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 6.11.2017 passed in IA No. 2124 of 2016 in OS No. 234 of 2004. 2. IA No. 2124 of 2016 was filed to condone the delay of 451 days in filing the application to restore the suit to file. The suit was dismissed on 3.7.2015. In the suit OS No. 234 of 2004, which was filed for specific performance, an issue arose about the stamp duty and penalty payable on the agreement of sale. The trial Court held that stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- were payable. The agreement was later sent to District Registrar, who reduced the stamp duty and penalty and directed that Rs. 1,10,000/- should be paid against the assessed stamp duty and penalty. Against the same, an appeal was filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Officer. As this document was not brought back to the Court and marked, the suit was dismissed for default on 3.7.2015. Seeking restoration, the application was filed. After contest, the impugned order was passed on 6.11.2017 and the lower Court held that the explanation given is not correct and no valid grounds are made out to condone the delay. Questioning the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3. This Court has heard Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the delay occurred because they were pursuing their statutory remedies as available to them under law. Counsel points out that the stamp duty that was initially fixed by the Court at Rs. 3,00,000/- was reduced to Rs. 1,10,000/-. He further states that Appeal No. 7478 of 2015 which was fled also pending before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. In addition, WP No. 707 of 2015 was also moved. Therefore, by virtue of all these above reasons, the delay occurred. 5. During the course of hearing. This Court wanted to ascertain the status of WP No. 707 of 2015 which was referred to in the affidavit filed in support of LA No. 2124 of 2016. Sri G. Ramesh Babu produced a copy of the order passed in WP No. 707 of 2015 during the hearing on 18.2.2019. The order shows that WP No. 707 of 2015 was withdrawn on 22.1.2015. Sri G. Ramesh Babu produced a copy of the order passed in WP No. 707 of 2015 during the hearing on 18.2.2019. The order shows that WP No. 707 of 2015 was withdrawn on 22.1.2015. Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel argued that as the cumulative result of the statutory remedies they were pursuing, the delay occurred. He, therefore, prays that the delay should be condoned. Counsel in the alternative also submitted that he is prepared to pay stamp duty and penalty as fixed by the Court i.e., Rs. 1,10,000/- and also the costs. He therefore, submitted that the revision should be allowed. 6. In reply to this, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The appeal itself was pending before the Chief Controlling Revenue Officer on 3.7.2015. He also points out that the writ petition was withdrawn on 22.1.2015. The Counsel points out the despite the withdrawal of the writ petition, in Para No. 3 of the affidavit, it is mentioned as if the writ is still pending in the High Court. Counsel points out that the affidavit is affirmed on 19.10.2016, whereas writ was already withdrawn on 22.1.2015. Therefore, he submits that the explanation offered is not correct and is totally contrary to the facts. The learned Counsel for the respondents also strongly opposed the offer made by the revision petitioner to pay Rs. 1,10,000/- as the penalty. He argued that the revision should be dismissed. 7. This Court after considering both the submissions notices that what is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents appears to be correct. The writ petition was withdrawn on 22.1.2015, but the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay states that the writ is pending even on 19.10.2016. More than once, it is reiterated that the writ petition is still pending. After an opportunity was given the copy of the order dated 22.1.2015 passed in WP No. 707 of 2015 was produced. Thus, now there is no doubt that the writ was dismissed on 22.1.2015. Apart from that, the petitioner also used his statutory remedy of filing the appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Officer, dated 3.7.2015. In these circumstances, a duty was cast upon the petitioner to explain why he could not file an application within the time allowed from 3.7.2015. Thus, now there is no doubt that the writ was dismissed on 22.1.2015. Apart from that, the petitioner also used his statutory remedy of filing the appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Officer, dated 3.7.2015. In these circumstances, a duty was cast upon the petitioner to explain why he could not file an application within the time allowed from 3.7.2015. The entire affidavit is silent of the cause of the delay between 3.7.2015 to 19.10.2016, when the present application was filed. The petitioner had the benefit of legal advise and was pursuing his legal remedies but he did not explain the delay. 8. After examining the matter from this perspective and after examining the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa did not commit any error in passing the impugned order dated 6.11.2017. There is no proper or satisfactory explanation for the delay. The affidavit filed in the lower Court is contrary to the facts. The contention of the petitioner that he was waiting with the hope that his writ will be allowed is belied by the fact that the writ was voluntarily withdrawn on 22.1.2015 itself. Therefore, this Court holds that the deponent in the lower Court did not submit a correct or proper explanation for the delay. The Court also did not commit any error in passing the impugned order. 9. For all these reasons, this Court holds that there is absolutely no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision, shall stand closed.