AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Sudanthiram, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority (Inspector General of Registration), Chennai in No. 36151/No.3/06 dated 17.08.2006
The appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Inspector General of Registration) against the order
passed by Special Deputy Collector (Vellore) in Ci.Pa.858/2005 VBD dated 27.02.2006. It was filed challenging the value fixed on the properties
and thereby, for fixing the stamp duties.
While preferring the appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Inspector General of Registration), there had been a delay of 76
days. Therefore, the appellant herein along with the Memorandum of Grounds of appeal filed a petition seeking condonation of the the delay of 76
days. An affidavit was also filed by the petitioner giving reasons for the delay. The learned Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Inspector General
of Registration) had dismissed the appeal stating that appeal was not filed within the period of two months as provided u/s 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.
The learned Counsel for the appellant herein submitted that the 2nd respondent has already failed to consider the petition filed by the appellant
herein seeking condonation of delay. The revenue authority miserably failed to go into the reasons given by the petitioner for the delay.
The learned Government pleader submitted that the appeal should have been filed by the appellant herein within a period of two months as
prescribed by Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. As the appeal was not preferred
within the time prescribed, the authority was right in dismissing the delay.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, if the appeal is not filed in time, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act could be filed
along with the appeal and it is the duty of the authority to consider the petition seeking condonation of delay. The learned Counsel for the appellant
also relied on the decision of this Honourable High Court reported in M. Kaliammal Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and Another,
It is observed by the High Court in the above cited decision as follows:
A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment Indira Devi Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others, , dealing with a similar situation
had held that since the provisions of the Limitation Act is not excluded in matters relating to filing of an appeal, Section 5 of the Limitation Act gets
attracted.
Considering the law laid down by the Honourable High Court, this Court perused the copy of the affidavit filed by the appellant herein. The
reason for the delay in the affidavit is stated as follows:
I state that the impugned order dated 27.02.2006 seems to have been sent to us by post by the respondent. The office boy who happened to
receive the letters misplaced it and kept it in an unconnected file. Only on 12.07.2006 when we go through the file we could find the impugned
order copy tagged into it. Immediately, I contacted my Counsel at Chennai, prepared the appeal and filing the same today. The impugned order
says that I have to appeal within 60 days from the date of order. But due to the above stated bona fide reasons the appeal could not be filed in
time. There is a delay of nearly 76 days in filing the appeal.
This Court holds that sufficient reasons have been given by the appellant for the delay and this Court is of the firm opinion that to meet the ends
of justice the delay in filing the appeal to be condoned.
Consequently, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent herein is set aside and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The 2nd
respondent is directed to take up the appeal on file and dispose it of in accordance with law.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.