S LAKSHMINARAYAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are stated to be brothers, it is said, purchased a cinema theatre situate in S.P. Nos. 83, 84/1 bearing door No. 2A, 2A(2) in Avinashi Road, in Tiruppur town as per Document No. 790/87 dated 19-3-87 for consideration of Rs. 14,50,000. THE said document, it is said, had been presented before the Sub-Registrar, Thiruppur for registration and the said document, in fact, had been registered on 19-3-1987, but impounded for deficit stamps and referred to the Special Deputy Collector of Stamps, Collectorate Buildings Compound, Coimbatore (Second respondent) for enquiry and decision. THE second respondent is stated to have passed a provisional order dated 20-12-1987, by which he demanded the petitioners to pay additional stamps to the value of Rs. 50,747-90.

(2.) THE petitioners, by their application dated 20-1-1980 sought reconsideration of the order and the second respondent, in turn, by his order dated 31-8-1988 reduced the additional stamps to be paid by the petitioner as Rs. 46,834-60. THE aggrieved petitioners preferred appeal in C.M.A. No. 5 of 1988 before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur/Appellate Authority. THE Appellate Authority, by his order dated 29-3-1989 allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 9,125 as additional stamps.

(3.) A perusal of the records reveals that the order of the Appellate Authority had been delivered on 29-3-1989 and the Government applied for certified copy the next day of the order, namely, 30-3-1989. Copy was made ready on 2-6-1989 and delivered on 5-6-1989. Despite such delivery having been taken, the Civil Revision Petition had been filed, after an inordinate delay of more than, eight months on 9-2-1990 with a petition to excuse the delay caused in filing the same. What is further worse is that the return made on 13-4-1990 for compliance of certain defects by the office is yet to be rectified and the bundle represented. Pertinent it is to mention at this juncture, already nearly four years lapsed, since the date of deposit of the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 9,125. It is not known as to when the Government is to represent the returned records relatable to the Civil Revision Petition filed by them. The further uncertainty is as to whether the same will be entertained by excusing the inordinate delay caused, not only in filing but also in representation. Even assuming for argument's sake that such delay is to be condoned and the Civil Revision Petition is numbered, the further uncertainty is at the stage when the Civil Revision Petition is to be admitted and disposed of.