IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.25167 of 2009 And M.P.No.1 of 2009 T.Rajadurai Rep. By Power Holder T. Rajakannu Son of Thambusamy Sholaganar Allur Village, Sethiathope Post Chidambaram Taluk Cuddalore District ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Principal Revenue Control Officer Cum Inspector General of Registration Chennai 600 028. 2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Trichy. 3. The District Registrar, Ariyalur, Registration Dept. 4. The Sub Registrar, Perambalur, Registration Department ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the Orders in Mu.Mu.No.40040/No.4/09 dated 21.10.2009, on the files of the first respondent, quash the same and to direct the first respondent to hear and dispose on merits, the Appeal Petition dated 07.08.2009. For Petitioner : M/s. R. Selvakumar For Respondents: Mr. P. Subramani (AGP) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Order The impugned order in the present writ petition is an order passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioners request for condonation of delay in filing the statutory appeal, by an order dated 21.10.2009. 2. According to the petitioner he purchased a property on 06.12.2007 and presented the sale deed for registration before the fourth respondent. A notice in form No.1 was issued by the second respondent stating that the document has been under valued and claim was made for deficit stamp duty. In the said notice liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit his objections. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his objections on 19.05.2008. 3. The second respondent passed an order which in fact does not even contain the signature of the second respondent. However the petitioner could not prefer an appeal to the first respondent within a statutory period of two months prescribed under Rule 9 (5)(a) of the Tamilnadu Stamp (Prevention of under-valuation Instruments) Rule, 1968. The reason for the petitioner being not been able to submit the appeal within the time was stated by the petitioner along with the appeal petition and a prayer for condonation of delay was also sought for. The first respondent issued a show cause notice on 23.09.2009 calling upon to explain the reasons for the delay. Accordingly, the petitioner has explained the reason for his delay in explanation dated 06.09.2009. However, by the order dated 21.10.2009, the request for condonation of delay came to be rejected by the first respondent on the ground that he did not enclose any substantial record supporting the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal petition. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner in his petition dated 06.10.2009 has given a detailed explanation regarding the ailment suffered by him and that he was taking eye treatment in Aravinda Hospital, Pondicherry, and was also treated for diabetes in MV Research Centre, Royapuram and the petitioner had also developed certain neurological problems and was under the care and treatment of Dr. Velumani, Cuddalore. It has been further stated that the petitioner suffered an accident as a result of which a plate had to be fixed in his left leg and that all the necessary medical documents in proof of all his ailments have been enclosed in the typed set of paper. May be it is true that these records were not filed before the first respondent while seeking for condonation of delay. But however there is no record before the first respondent to state the reasons assigned by the petitioner are false and unbelievable. In the absence of any such record before the first respondent, the first respondent ought to have liberally construed the matter relating to condonation of delay especially with the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act have not been specifically excluded under Rule 9 of the Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. I am satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner which have prevented the petitioner from preferring the appeal within prescribed time frame. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to take up the case and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and dispose of the matter within a period of eight weeks. 7. With the above directions this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. prm Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Principal Revenue Control Officer Cum Inspector General of Registration Chennai 600 028. 2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Trichy. 3. The District Registrar, Ariyalur, Registration Dept. 4. The Sub Registrar, Perambalur, Registration Department + 1 cc to Mr.R. Selvakumar, Advocate SR.2739 W.P.No.25167 of 2009 And M.P.No.1 of 2009 BVR(CO) EU 28.01.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/