IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 928 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/09/2007 IN IA 4286/2006 IN OS.883/1991 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------- B.VIJAYAN, S/O G.BALAKRISHNAN, CHARUVILLA PUTHANVEEDU, PUNUKUNNUR, PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM. 4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, PUNALUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008 ALONG WITH CRP NO. 929 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 2637/07 IN C.R.P 928/07 DISMISSED 12.3.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. Nos. 928 & 929 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER These revision petitions are preferred against the order in IA 4286/06 & IA 4287/06 in OS 883/91 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kollam. The said applications are filed to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay of 14 years, 6 months and 18 days. The court below granted an order in favour of the Government by condoning the delay and setting aside the ex parte decree. It is against that decision, the present civil revision petitions are filed. 2. At a first blush it appears that the delay is inordinate and that the court should not normally take a lenient view to condone such delay. It was a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the Government from recovering the sales tax arrears on the ground that sales tax authorities are not competent to demand tax from him as a proprietary concern and that the wine shop conducted by him is only a partnership firm and so an injunction should be issued to restrain the Government from realising the dues of sales tax arrears. With the ordinary lethargy, the Government did not prosecute the case at all which culminated in an ex parte decree. After a gap of almost 14 years, 6 months and 18 days wisdom arose and some of the departmental employees wanted to undo the damage that has been C.R.P. Nos. 928 & 929/07 2 caused to the Department by filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. It is true that the reason averred is on account of administrative laches and slackness. Under ordinary circumstances such matters cannot be viewed very lightly for the reason that it takes away the vested right of a person on whom a right has come into being by virtue of a decree. I am reminded of the principles laid down by the Apex court in the decision reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji [AIR 1987 SC 1353] where the court broadly outlined that “when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preserved for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay.” The court also reminded that it must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” The court below relied upon Ext.A1 document to arrive at a decision that a fraud has been played and a decree has been obtained. Ext.A1 is an application for sales tax registration which would show that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the Kundara Wines and not partner of a firm. So the basic materials which he should have projected before the court is to suppress the basic fact. He described himself as a partner and contended that being a partner the sale tax authorities could not have enforced tax C.R.P. Nos. 928 & 929/07 3 against him. The matter ended in ex parte decree. Further it is a well settled principle that when a person comes to the court for getting an equitable relief by way of injunction, he must come with clean hands. A person who wants equity must come to the court with clean hands and if not, it may have its own repercussion. So taking these broad principles into consideration and the factum that public fund is affected when a person is entitled to encash the negligence of a few officers should not be a procedure that has to be affirmed by the court of law when it is faced with serious situations like this to decide the matter. Therefore, I agree with the learned Munsiff in condoning the delay and giving an opportunity to the State Government to place the proper materials before the court and to contest the matter in accordance with law. Being an old matter, the court shall try to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. The civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. Nos. 928 & 929/07 4