Disposed

Chakresh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2021WRIC/7642/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order condoning a ten-year delay in filing a revision under the Stamp Act without notice. The Court observed that if the petitioner had not received notice, they could object to the revision authority, which must then act in accordance with the law.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; no substantive relief was granted as the ultimate remedy lies with the revision authority.

Chakresh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7642 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Chakresh Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3.

¶6

The petitioner has purchased 4/7 part of property bearing no.1/149, Kale Ka Tal, Hariparvat Ward, District Agra by sale deed dated 06.01.2005.

¶7

It appears that a proceeding under Section 47-A (3) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1899') was initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.615/2005 before Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'A.D.M.'). The said proceeding under Section 47-A (3) of the Act, 1899 culminated into discharge of notice by the A.D.M. by order dated 22.12.2008.

¶8

The respondent-State preferred a revision under Section 56(1) of the Act, 1899 against the order of A.D.M. dated 22.12.2008 which was registered as Revision No.C202001000000549. The revision court by order dated 22.06.2020 condoned the delay in filing the revision and admitted the revision.

¶9

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that revision is highly time barred as the same has been preferred after ten years from the date of passing of order dated 22.12.2008 and revision court without issuing any notice on application to condone the delay to the petitioner condoned the delay and admitted the revision. Thus, order is per se illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

The order impugned in the writ petition reads as under:-

¶12

''आददेश

¶13

प्रस्त त ु ननिगररानिन, ननिगररानिनकतरार्ता उ०प्र० रराज्य व अन्य दराररा भरारतनय स्टराम्प अधधिननियम

¶14

1899, ककी धिराररा 56(1) प् र रर्तानिरा पत्र धिराररा 5 म्यराद अधधिननियम कदे अन्तगर् त ा दराधखिल ककी गयन। ननिगररानिन ककी गराहयतरा कदे नबिन्दतु पर रराज्य सरकरार कदे अधधिवकरा कको सतुनिरा गयरा। ननिगररानिन आधिरार, अवर न्यरायरालय करा प्रश्निगत आददेश एववं अन्य अनभलदेखिखों करा परनक्षण नकयरा गयरा। प्रस्त त ु ननिगररानिन न्यरायरालय अपर धजिलराधधिकरारन (नव०/ररा०) आगररा दराररा स्टराम्पवराद सवंख्यरा 615/2005 नदनिरावंक 22.12.2008 कको पराररत आददेश कदे नवरूद, स्टराम्प अधधिननियम ककी धिराररा 56 (1) मम प् र रर्तानिरा पत्र धिराररा -5 म्यराद अधधिननियम कदे अन्तगर् त ा प्रस्त त ु ककी गयन हहै। ननिगररानिनकतरार्ता ककी ननिगररानिन मम वनणर् त ा तथ्यखों पर सम्यक परनक्षणकोपररान्त न्यरायनहत मम रराज्य सरकरार ककी ननिगररानिन गतुणदकोष पर सतुनिवराई कदे धलए गहण ककी जिरातन हहै। अवर न्यरायरालय ककी पत् र वलन तलबि करनिदे हदेततु मरावंग पत्र प्रदेनषत नकयरा जिरायदे तररा नदतनय पक्ष कको निकोनटस जिरारन नकयरा जिरायदे। पत् र वलन प्रतनक्षरा अवर न्यरायरालय हदेततु नदनिरावंक 14.9.2020 कको पदेश हको। नदनिरावंककः 22.6.20

¶15

(एम०कदे० सक्सदेनिरा) उपरायतुक स्टराम्प, आगररा मण्डल, आगररा।''

¶16

A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that delay in filing the revision has been condoned and revision has been admitted. If company had not been given notice on delay condonation application and was not afforded any opportunity of hearing, it is open to the petitioner to take objection against the order condoning the delay in filing the revision before the revision authority, and in case any such objection is taken by the petitioner challenging the condonation of delay by the revision authority, revision authority shall decide the same in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off .

¶18

Order Date :- 15.6.2021 S.Sharma

Chakresh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakresh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indra Builders Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santushti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kps Propbuild Private Pimited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Herosons Constructions Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kps Propbuild Private Pimited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Deepa Sharma and Another Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others