SCA/273/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 273 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= CHHOTUBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TATTVAM K PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, Mr A A Dave, AGP for Respondent(s) : ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 05/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. SCA/273/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned orders passed by Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Surat Division, Nanpura, Surat dated 21.9.2001 and the order passed by respondent No.1, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dated 11.10.2007. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that earlier also notice dated 20.4.1996 (Annexure “B”) was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner appeared before the Stamp Duty Collector and filed his reply. Thereafter, respondent No.2, Stamp Duty Collector dropped the proceedings. It is also submitted by him that the respondent No.1 has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner solely on the ground that the appeal was time barred i.e. one delay was caused. 3. The question that now remains to be considered in this petition is whether the appellate authority ought to have condoned the delay in question or not. 4. Delay can be caused on account of various reasons and sometimes for reasons beyond the control of the aggrieved party. The court should however take care to see (i) whether the refusal to condone the delay is likely to defeat a meritorious matter and the cause of justice (ii) the approach of the court should not be SCA/273/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT highly technical (iii) the court should prefer substantial justice when a substantial justice versus other technical considerations are pitted against each other and (iv) there should be a non-deliberate delay element on the party of the aggrieved party. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under: “5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases:- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedue, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 5. Thus, it is clear that the statute provides extension of prescribed period in certain cases. Under Section 32A of the Act, there is nothing to show that the Court is prevented from exercising the discretion beyond the period of 90 days. This being the position, there is no absolute restriction, and the Court can entertain an appeal even beyond the period prescribed in deserving cases. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the respondent no.2-appellate authority ought to have condoned the delay and that would at the most result in the decision of the SCA/273/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT appeal on merits. In this connection, See – (i) Integrated Proteins Pvt.Ltd. vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, reported in [2007] 15 G.H.J. (143) relevant portion at para-4 of the judgment which reads as follows: “4.........If there is no express exclusion of applicability of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the same are applicable for condonation of delay in an appeal preferred before appellate authority under Sec.32-B of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958. The appellate authority ought to consider the delay condonation application as per sections 4 to 24 of the Act of 1963 whenever any appeal is preferred under section 32 of the Act of 1958. Looking to the provisions of the Act of 1958, there is no provision for exclusion of applicability of sections 4 to 24 of the Act of 1963. Hence, as per sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Act of 1963, sections 4 to 24 of the Act of 1963 shall be applicable even to appeals preferred under Section 32-B of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the appellate authority.” 7. In light of what is discussed here in above, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay suffers from the vice of non application of mind. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. In the interest of justice matter deserves to be remanded to the appellate SCA/273/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT authority. 8. In the result, the order passed by the respondent no.1-appellate authority dated 11.10.2007 against the petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1-the Chief Controlling Officer, Stamp & Registration Bhavan, Sector 13-C, “Kha” Road, Gandhinagar, who will after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, decide the same on merits and in accordance with law keeping in mind the decision cited hereinabove. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. [M.D. SHAH, J.] msp