The Kerala High Court, in a civil revision petition, heard arguments regarding an order declining to condone delay in filing an appeal against a decree in an injunction suit concerning tax revenue recovery. The Court found no ground for interference and disposed of the revision.
Revision petition closed without interference in the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931
CRP.No. 1166 of 2002()
---------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2001 IN IA. 235 /1995 IN AS.15/1995 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA
REVN. PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS
ADV. SRI.K.SASI KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R-1 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R-1
SRI.MANU V. FOR R-1
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.1166 of 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th November, 2009
ORDER
The revision is filed by the State/1st defendant in O.S.No.475 of
1992 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala, which was a suit for injunction filed by the first respondent against the revenue recovery proceedings issued against him towards arrears of tax due on a motor vehicle. Suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent restraining the State and the public officials impleaded as defendants 2 and 3, from proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act against the first respondent/plaintiff under the notice already issued. State preferred an appeal with a petition to condone the delay. Petition to condone the delay was dismissed under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.
CRP No.1166/02 - 2 -
the petitioner for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal is called for. Learned Government Pleader has handed over to me a copy of the judgment rendered by the trial court which indicate injunction was granted only restraining the State and its public officials from proceeding against the first respondent/plaintiff in respect of the notice mentioned, as issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is open to the State to take recourse to whatever remedies available under law as the decree forbids them from proceeding only in respect of the notice already issued, which alone was sought to be injuncted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the suit. Subject to the observations made above, the revision is closed.
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE
srd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision court should interfere with the order declining the request for condoning delay in preferring the appeal.
Kerala State represented by the District Collector, Alappuzha
A.P. Prasanthan
S.S. Satheesachandan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
