HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This judgment will dispose of five petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitions are Nos. 209, and 233 to 236 of 1953. The Petitioner in each case aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector filed an appeal to the Collector who without going into the merits of the case. in, appeal, dismissed the appeal on the sole ground that it was time-barred and that no prayer had been made to him for condonation of the limitation nor any circumstance had been shown for such condonation. In each case the Petitioner went in revision to the Commissioner, who recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the order of the Collector should be revised on the ground that he had failed to exercise jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation when in fact excluding the time for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree the appeal was within limitation. The learned Financial Commissioner by separate judgment in each case, but proceeding on the same reasoning did not accept the recommendation of the Commissioner on the ground that there was no prayer before the Collector that the time taken for obtaining copy, of the judgment "mid be taken into consideration.
(2.) Against this, order of the learned Financial Commissioner in each case, the Petitioner has filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking reversal of the order n the ground that that order is made in violation of clear provisions of law.
(3.) It is not denied by the learned Counsel on either side that if the time for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree is excluded then the appeal before the Collector, in each case, was within! time counting time from the date of judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector to the date of the presentation of the appeal" to the Collector.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.