Rameshwar Dayal Gupta vs The Chief Inspector of Stamps

R.M. Sahai, J.—In a esse u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act an agreement dated 30th December 1968 was filed before the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar who was exercising powers as a Tribunal under that Act. An objection was raised by Inspector of Stamps that as the agreement also contained the power of attorney, a penalty of Rs. 4616.70 p, may be imposed on it. This contention of the Inspector was not accepted and it was held that Sub-clause (4) of Article 48 of Stamps Act was applicable and the total penalty leviable was Rs. 36.85 Naya Paisa. Against this order the Chief Inspector of Stamps acting as Collector filed reference u/s 61 of the Indian Stamp Act (Act II of 1899) which came up for hearing before the Full Bench on 8th May, 1979. It was held that as the reference was not a reference u/s 57(2) it was to be listed before appropriate Bench. It was later on listed before Division Bench which passed an order on 29th August 1979 that revision was u/s 61 and therefore it should be listed before the bench hearing revision. It is in these circumstances this revision has been listed for decision.

Learned Counsel for the assessee Rameshwar Dayal Singh had raised a preliminary objection that this revision is not maintainable. It has been argued by him that the decision was not by a civil Court and therefore the order was not revisable, u/s 61. Reliance has been placed on Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. through Collector Farrukhabad 1970 AWR 875. It was held: ''''that a claim tribunal constituted u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act not a Civil Court subordinate to High Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code."

3, In United India Fire and General Insurance v. Mst. Sayar Kunwar AIR 1976 Raj 173 a similar view has been taken It is therefore clear that the district Judg while exercising power u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles u/s 61 of the Stamps Act

From a perusal of the sections it is clear that the power could have been exercised by civil, revenue or criminal court and the revision could lie to a court in which the appeal lay from the order passed by such civil, revenue or criminal court. As the District Judge acted as Tribunal and it was not a court therefore the order passed by him was not revisable u/s 61. it was argued by the learned Standing Counsel that in fact it was reference u/s 57 which was wrongly mentioned as reference u/s 61. In the alternative be urged that even if this revision is not maintainable it may be considered as a reference u/s 57. The contention is untenable as reference u/s 57 is made by Chief Controlling revenue authority whereas this reference has been made by Chief Inspector of Stamps acting as Collector. It is thus clear the Section 61 has not been mentioned by mistake nor has the reference filed by Chief Controlling Authority therefore neither it can be treated as reference u/s 57 nor it can be taken to be mistake in writing Section 61 instead of Section 57.

In the result this revision fails and is dismissed as not maintainable. The applicant shall be entitled to its costs.