BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.109 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 S.M.Venkatesh .. Appellant Vs. 1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Virudhunagar. 2.The Sub-Registrar, Rajapalayam. 3.The Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue Controlling Authority cum Inspector General of Regisration, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28 .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 47 A (10) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, against the order of the third respondent dated 12.10.2007, passed in Proceedings No.MU.MU.No.45394/N4/07. !For Appellant ... Mr.A.Sivaji ^For Respondents ... Mr.So.Paramasivam Government Advocate (CS) :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the order of the third respondent dated
12.10.2007, passed in Proceedings No.MU.MU.No.45394/N4/07.
2. Heard both sides. At the time of admission, both sides agreed to argue
the matter on merits. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for disposal.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition would run thus:
The appellant herein filed a petition dated 06.09.2007, praying the
Inspector General of Registration to condone the delay in filing the appeal and
to entertain the appeal, which was filed as against the order dated 28.03.2007
directing him to pay additional stamp duty. The appellate authority in the
cryptic Order dated 12.10.2007, dismissed the appeal and an excerpt from the
order is extracted hereunder:
“2. tpjp 9(3)(b)d;go Mtz efy; nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.
3. Bky;KiwaPl;L kDt[ld; gjpt[j;Jiwj;jiyth; foj vz;.49233/vz;3/2006, ehs;.
18.05.2007d;go, fhy jhkjj;jpw;fhd fhuz]A;fs; kw;Wk; MjhuA;fs; kDt[ld;
nizf;fg;gltpy;iy.”
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is focussed on the main ground that the appellate
authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal in such a manner as stated
supra without considering the records already enclosed along with the appeal and
that his expectation for separate application for condone the delay is not
tenable.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity in
the order passed by the third respondent in Proceedings
No.MU.MU.No.45394/N4/07, dated 12.10.2007?
6. Point: The perusal of the records and the hearing the arguments would
clearly highlight that the appellate authority did not state that it had no
powers to condone the delay and what the appellate authority highlighted was to
the effect that necessary documents were not enclosed and separate petition
stating the reasons for condoning the delay was not filed. There is some force
in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even
though there is no specific provision to get the delay condoned, the appellate
authority had inherent power to condone the delay in matters of this nature,
without a specific petition nonetheless there will be no harm in filing separate
application as expected by the appellate authority. Hence, I am of the
considered opinion that filing of a separate petition for getting the delay
condoned enclosing necessary documents as expected by the appellate authority
would not in any way prejudice the petitioner.
11. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the
following direction:
The petitioner is given an opportunity to file necessary application to get
the delay condoned by enclosing necessary documents within one months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order taking the earlier date of appeal as cut
of date to compute the number of days delay in filing appeal and thereupon the
appellate authority shall consider it on merits as expeditiously as possible.
Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.
sj
To
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Virudhunagar.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Rajapalayam.
3.The Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue
Controlling Authority
cum Inspector General of
Regisration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28