THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4241 OF 2011 DATED 16TH DECEMER, 2011 BETWEEN Puli Tirupathi …Petitioner And The District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Medak District at Sangareddy and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4241 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner moved I.A.No.52 of 2011 in the appeal filed by him seeking condonation of 1796 days delay in filing an appeal under Section 47-A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1899’). By order dated 16.08.2011, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, dismissed the subject application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard the petitioner appearing as a party-in-person and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for the respondent registration authorities. The petitioner presented a sale deed on 15.06.2005 before the Sub-Registrar, Siddipet, for registration. This document pertained to an extent of Ac.3.28 guntas of dry land in Survey No.257/2 of Venkatapuram Village, Siddipet Revenue Mandal, Medak District. The market value of the land was shown as Rs.81,500/- but the Sub- Registrar, Siddipet, being of the opinion that the market value was higher, kept the document pending registration and referred it to the District Registrar and Collector, Medak District, under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 for determination of the market value and the proper duty payable thereon. The District Registrar and Collector, Medak, under his order dated 30.11.2005 fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and quantified the deficit stamp duty and additional registration fee payable at Rs.54,452/-. Despite the passing of the above order, it appears that the petitioner continued to make representations to the District Registrar and Collector, Medak. The order under revision refers to the petitioner’s representations dated 14.12.2005, 27.12.2005, 21.01.2006, 14.08.2007, 05.09.2007, 05.12.2007, 19.03.2008, 04.07.2008, 11.08.2008, 12.11.2008, 01.01.2009, 24.01.2009, 25.05.2009, 11.09.2009 and 05.01.2010 in this regard. The petitioner, in fact, claims that the order dated 30.11.2005 of the District Registrar and Collector, Medak, was served on him only under letter No.117/07 dated 21.08.2007 of the Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Siddipet, the second respondent. Lack of proper guidance, perhaps, led to the petitioner filing an appeal before the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, purportedly under Section 47-A(3-A) of the Act of 1899. This appeal appears to have been filed by the petitioner only on 11.09.2009. By communication dated 30.10.2009, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, informed the petitioner that he has to seek redressal in a competent Court of law by filing an appeal against the District Registrar’s order dated 30.11.2005. A copy thereof was also marked to the District Registrar directing him to apprise the petitioner of the statutory provisions for filing an appeal in the matter. The petitioner claims that the aforestated communication dated 30.10.2009 was received by him only on 20.03.2010. The petitioner again misdirected himself by approaching the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Siddipet, for redressal of his grievance. The same was taken on file as RP No.16/2010 and by order dated 19.06.2010, the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat Bench at Siddipet dismissed the RP opining that the petitioner had to approach the appellate authority for getting appropriate relief. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the District Legal Services Authority, Sangareddy, Medak District, for obtaining legal aid under the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996. By certificate dated 02.08.2010, the District Legal Services Authority, Medak, certified that the petitioner was entitled to exemption from payment of court fee to file an appeal before the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet. However, under Section 47-A(5)(ii) of the Act of 1899, the appellate authority against an order passed by the District Registrar and Collector under Section 47- A(2) or (3) of the Act of 1899 is the Subordinate Judge or, if there are more than one, the Principal Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property concerned is situated. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet. This appeal was filed against the order dated 30.11.2005 of the District Registrar and Collector, Medak District, and as there was considerable delay in the filing thereof, the petitioner moved the subject application in I.A.No.52 of 2011 seeking condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellate Court, however, was of the opinion that the petitioner had failed to properly explain the reason for the long delay in the filing of the appeal and that the grounds stated by him, viz., administrative lapses and financial problems, were not appropriate grounds for condoning the delay. The delay condonation application was accordingly dismissed. The sequence of events narrated supra demonstrate that the petitioner cannot be accused of lack of diligence in pursuing the matter. Even after suffering the adverse order dated 30.11.2005 before the District Registrar and Collector, Medak District, the petitioner continued to make representations to him, obviously being unaware of the legal remedies available to him under the Act of 1899. Further, it was his case that the said order was communicated to him only on 21.08.2007. Even after receipt of this order, which in no uncertain terms put him on notice as to its appealability under Section 47-A(4) of the Act of 1899, the petitioner continued to make representations to the District Registrar and Collector, Medak District. It was only two years thereafter that he chose to approach the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by way of the appeal dated 11.09.2009. The said authority promptly issued letter dated 30.10.2009 informing the petitioner that he had to seek redressal in a competent Court of law by filing an appeal against the order dated 30.11.2005. This letter, according to the petitioner, was received by him only on 20.03.2010. Pertinent to note, the Commissioner and Inspector General marked a copy of the letter to the District Registrar and Collector, Medak, directing him to inform the petitioner of the statutory provisions for filing an appeal in the matter. Even thereafter, the petitioner continued to blunder as he approached the Mandal Legal Services Authority instead of the appellate authority under the Act of 1899. Having suffered an adverse order before the Lok Adalat, he then took steps to seek legal aid for the purpose of filing an appeal and obtained a certificate in this regard only on 02.08.2010. He finally moved the subject delay condonation application in the appeal filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, only on 18.01.2011. It cannot therefore be said that the entire delay of 1796 days was left unexplained. It is only the delay between 02.08.2010 and 18.01.2011 that has been left completely untouched by the petitioner. The rest of the period has been accounted for one way or the other. As the petitioner was espousing his own cause without seeking legal assistance, some amount of leeway has to be extended to him. A hidebound and pedantic approach is not to be adopted in such cases. The Court must essentially look towards rendering substantial justice and ought not to be bogged down by technicalities. As the facts on record clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was not negligent but had been actively pursuing the matter, albeit before the wrong authorities, the appellate Court ought to have been more accommodating while dealing with the matter. The unexplained delay being a short one of less than six months and given the plea of the petitioner that financial constraints kept him from invoking the appellate remedy more expeditiously, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view of the matter and condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. The order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, in I.A.No.52 of 2011 in the unnumbered first appeal preferred by the petitioner is accordingly set aside and the I.A. is allowed condoning the delay of 1796 days. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, shall take the petitioner’s appeal on file after due verification as to whether the same is in accordance with law without reference to the aspect of limitation. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 16TH DECEMBER, 2011. VGSR