- (1.) ALI Mohammad petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota dated 26. 10. 64.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that certificate of recovery of Rs. 22. 864/-/9 was filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Kota against the petitioner in November, 1953. This recovery proceedings under the P. D. R. Act conti-nued to pend before the Collector, Kota for all these years. It was only after 10 years that on 21. 10. 63 the final arguments were heard of these recovery proceedings of the counsel of the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader and the case was posted for delivery of judgment on 7. 11. 1963. It was then adjourned on 21-1 1-1963 and 28. 11. 63 and finally the judgment was given on 5. 12. 1963. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Collector Kota on 25. 2. 1964 with the allegation in the application that he had knowledge of the impugned order of the Collector, Kota on 6. 2. 1964 only and after obtaining a copy, which was given or 21. 2. 1964, he filed the present appeal which was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority as time barred on the ground that the petitioner had the knowledge or ought to have had the knowledge of the date of judgment on 5. 12. 1963 because he was given notice to be present on that date. The counsel for the petitioner's only contention was that when the final arguments were concluded on 21. 10. 1963 before the Collector, Kota, the case was posted for final decision on 7-1 1-1963 and on that date the petitioner was present, but the case was never taken up for delivery of judgment and no notice was given to the petitioner of the subsequent dates. The Govt. Advocate's reply was that presumption of truth attaches to the order passed by the Judicial Courts and if the proceedings of 7. 11. 1963 are perused, it will be seen that the presence of the counsel of the petitioner is recorded. The petitioner has filed an affidavit at the stage to show that although he was present on 7. 11. 1963 no order-sheet was written on that date and that the Reader of the Collector's Court informed him that the file was with the Collector and that he would be informed of the date of decision. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Reader Nand Kishore who denied the allegation of the petitioner and stated that the opposite party was present on the date of 7th November, 1963 and the order was written on that date. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. The date on which the judgment was to be delivered by the Collector in these recovery proceedings was fixed on 7. 11. 1963. The order sheet on the file on 7. 11. 1963 records that the counsel for the opposite party i. e. Ali Mohammad was present and then the date was adjourned to 21-1 1-1963. It may be noted that the over-writing on the order-sheet of 7. 11. 1963 is an important factor. It appears from the close examination of this order of the date on the order-sheet that the figures 11. 1963 are clear enough. There is an overwriting with regard to the figure 7. In fact, the figures 21 or 20 was written and then it was converted to 7. Thus this raised a doubt whether the file was ever produced on 7. 11. 1963 and the order was written on that date. This over-writing is not initiated by the Presiding Officer. From the proceedings it will be seen that Ali Mohammad or his counsel was continuously present on every day of the hearing, there was no reason why he or his counsel should not have been present on 7-31-66, if the order was at all written on that date. Besides the two orders on the sheet 7-11 63 and 21. 11. 1963 are written in the same hand and in the same ink and it leads one to an irresistible conclusion that they were written on the same day with the same pen and ink. This fact that the file never came up for hearing on 7. 11. 1963 is duly supported by the affidavit of Ali Mohammad. There is no doubt that this allegation is denied by the Reader Nand Kishore who has stated in his affidavit that the case was called for hearing on 7. 11. 1963 and that the opposite party was noticed on that date. He does not clarify in these proceedings whether the opposite party was counsel of the petitioner Ali Mohammad or was Ali Mohammad himself present. It often happens that in most cases the files do not come up for hearing before the Collector, when adjournment is normally granted and the Reader changes the date in the absence of the Presiding Officer and later on takes his signature. This practice is however deprecated which leads to all sorts of confusion and trouble and foul practices. On 21. 11. 1963 it appears, that again the judgment in the file was not announced and the case was adjourned to 28. 11. 1963 without recording the presence or absence of the parties. In fact no record of the presence or absence of the party was made subsequent to 21. 11. 1963. Under these circumstances it was necessary when so many adjournments were granted and the presence of the parties was not noticed that a proper opportunity or information of the date of the judgment should have been given to the opposite party. In these circumstances the conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Appellate Authority that the petitioner was present on 7. 11. 1963 and had knowledge of the subsequent dates is based purely on conjectures and therefore an improper finding of fact on the basis of which he came to a wrong conclusion and held the appeal time barred. These circumstances were sufficient to give the petitioner an exemption u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The subsequent Act of the petitioner shows that he only had the knowledge of this order on 6. 2. 1954. The order of the Collector pronouncing his judgment in the open Court on 5-12 1963 does not record either the presence of the petitioner or his absence. He should have atleast stated in his judgment that if the opposite party was absent and therefore he should be informed. No information at all of that order seems to have been given to the opposite party. Therefore his application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act before the Revenue Appellate Authority deserved to be considered in proper manner. He had filed an affidavit to support his application and there was no counter affidavit before the Revenue Appellate Authority on the side of the Government to rebut his allegation. Under these circumstances there was no reason to disbelieve the contents of the application of the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act For the reasons stated above, I accept the revision petition of the petitioner, set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and hold that the appeal was within limitation period and accept his application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and remand this case back to him for being decided on merits. These recovery proceedings have become unduly late and the same should be disposed of expeditiously. .;