EXCISE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal was preferred by the Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. 223 of 1990 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Koyilandy. The first Respondent herein instituted the suit against the Appellant and another (4th Defendant) seeking a decree of declaration that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the first Respondent is barred by limitation and to restrain the Appellants by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from realising any amount from the first Respondent by revenue recovery in pursuance of Ext.A1 notice dated 2.5.1990.

(2.) The Appellants, the State and their officials, contended that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated were not at all barred by limitation and that the suit is not maintainable because of the bar under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) After raising the issues, the parties were sent for trial. During the course of trial, the first Respondent was examined as PW.1. The Excise Inspector, Koyilandy, was examined as DW.1. On the side of the first Respondent, Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the Appellants, Exts. B1 to B4 were marked. The learned Munsiff, on appraisal of the evidence on record, arrived at a finding that since the recovery proceedings were initiated within thirty years, it is not at all barred by limitation and that the suit is hit by Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.