HAJEE MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN SAIT OF HAJEE ABDULLA HAJEE Vs. COMMISSIONER AND COUNCIL CORPORATION OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three references under Rule 17, Schedule IT (4), City Municipal Act raise the same question for decision formulated by the Ct. of Small Causes:

(2.) By Notfn. No. 662, Local Administration dated 14-8-1942, published in the Fort St, George Gazette, for the words "from the date of the decision" the following words were substituted, viz., "from the date on which such decision was communicated by registered post." It may be mentioned that a similar substitution was made in Sub-clause (ii) of Rule 15 (a) providing for the presentation of appeals. The learned Judge thought that the language of the rule strictly construed supported the objection on behalf of the Corporation, because the rule contemplated a notice only after the communication of the decision of the Appeals Committee. We fail to see anything in the language which compels us to agree with the learned Judge. There is nothing in that provision which makes it incumbent on the assessee who is aggrieved by the decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee to give notice only after the communication of the decision of the Committee. The only relevant words as regards the time limit are "within ten days from the date on which the decision was communicated by registered post." All that is material is to find out when 10 days expire. Any notice of intention to appeal given before that date would be sufficient compliance with the requirement of the rale. "Within ten days" should be read as "not beyond ten days."

(3.) The learned Chief Judge referred to case decided on a construction of Order 41, Rule 22, C. P.C., which contains the words "within one month from the date when he (the resp.) receives notice of the hearing of the appeal." A Division Bench of the Lahore H. C. in Mst. Koshalia V. Biazuddin, A. I. R. (23) 1936 Lah. 362 ; (162 I. C. 336) (the learned Judge was wrong in thinking it was the decision of a single Judge) took the view that a memorandum of crossobjectiona filed by a resp. before he was served with notice of the appeal would not be a valid memorandum. The reasoning of the learned Judges can be best stated in their own words: