Allowed

Uppaluri Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC5 Mar 2010CRP/5307/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order dismissing an application to condone a 255-day delay in representing a civil appeal regarding stamp duty valuation. The High Court set aside the dismissal, condoned the delay, and granted the petitioner leave to file the appeal on merits while reserving the respondents' right to oppose maintainability due to non-deposit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing application for condonation of delay is set aside; delay condoned; liberty granted to respondents to raise maintainability contentions at hearing.

Uppaluri Srinivasa Rao Vs State of A.P. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5307 OF 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-08-2009 in an unnumbered CMA of 2008 (G.R.No.20 dated 02-01-2009) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, wherein the petition filed under Section 151 CPC to condone the delay of 255 days in representing the CMA, was dismissed.

¶4

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶5

3. The petitioner herein filed an unnumbered CMA impugning the proceedings dated 29-09-2007 of the District Registrar, Vizianagaram and for holding that the valuation mentioned in the document presented for registration was true. The CMA was admittedly preferred within the period of two months prescribed under Section 47-A (4) of the Indian Stamp Act coupled with Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975. However, the petitioner has not deposited the difference of the stamp duty in a sum of around Rs.16,000/- along with the appeal as required under Section 47 A (2) of the Indian Stamp Act. The appeal was, therefore, returned for compliance with the said direction. The appeal was, however, represented

¶6

with a delay of 255 days expressing readiness and willingness to comply with the objection dated 15-04-2008 and seeking permission to deposit the difference of the stamp duty. According to the petitioner, he was laid up with jaundice and, therefore, he could not move out and hence the delay in representation of the appeal. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the mandatory requirement of deposit of difference stamp duty along with the presentation of the appeal within the prescribed period of two months, has not been complied with. Hence, the present revision.

¶7

4. The impugned order does not record any specific finding regarding the plea raised by the petitioner for explaining the delay and seeking condonation of the same. Admittedly, the appeal was preferred within the period of two months. However, the difference of stamp duty was not deposited along with the presentation of the appeal. The appeal papers were duly returned on 15-042008 raising the said objection. The objection was complied with but with a delay of 255 days.

¶8

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to deposit the difference in stamp duty.

¶9

6. In the circumstances, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to file the appeal

¶10

and have the matter disposed of on merits instead of summarily rejecting the same at the threshold. It is, however, open to the respondents to raise all contentions including the one pertaining to the maintainability of the appeal due to non-compliance with the requirement of depositing the difference in stamp duty along with the presentation of the appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.

¶11

7. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the application filed for condoning the delay is set aside and delay in representing the appeal is condoned subject to the liberty given to the respondents as stated above.

¶12

8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶14

Dated 05^th February, 2010 Lrkm.

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶16

FRIDAY, THE 05^TH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶19

C.R.P.No.5307 OF 2009

¶20

Between:-

¶21

Uppaluri Srinivasa Rao

¶22

…Petitioner

¶23

A n d

¶24

State of A.P rep. by District Collector, Vizianagaram and others

¶25

…Respondents

Uppaluri Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppaluri Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.

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

Mada Nageswararao, Vs Potta Bharathi

Mada Suryanarayana , Suresh, Vs Potta Simhadri Appala Narasimha Murthy

Thondavarapu Malleswararao Vs Chavithina Gangamma

Jagana Chinaramamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mahanti Marayya Vs The State of A.P.

Sidda Muralimohan Rao Vs The State of A.P.