PRATIMA WILLIAMS Vs. COMMISSIONER BAREILLY DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. It is contended that UP. (Amendment) Act No. 38 of 2001 has provided power of appeal in which no stay application is to be considered under Section 56 (1-A) of the Stamp Act untitl/3rd of the amount is deposited and security is furnished for the remaining amount. Shri H. N. Sharma states that this right to appeal does not take away the power of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to entertain a revision under Section 56 (1) of the Stamp Act and in case of revision under Section 56 (1) of the Act the requirement of deposit of 1/3 amount of deficiency and penalty for grant of interim order will not be applicable. He has relied upon the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 46243 of 2004. Smt. Vimlesh Gutam v. State and another (Mnex. 2 page 18 ).

(2.) PRIMA facie I find that right to file an appeal under Section 56 (1-A) would not give a choice to the appellant to file revision and to apply for stay without depositing 1/3rd of the amount. After the legislation has provided a right of appeal, the right of the appellant to file revision under Section 56 (1) is not to be left to the discretion of the appellant. The appeal is a creature of statute. The appeal and revision are not interchangeable terms. These powers are distinct and are very well understood by the Courts of law. Whereas the appeal lies both on question of fact and law, the revision may be entertained on the question of error of jurisdic tion and material irregularities in exercise of such jurisdiction, causing substan tial injustice to the aggrieved person.

(3.) UNTIL further orders, in case the petitioner deposits the entire deficiency within six weeks, the recovery of penalty from him under the impugned orders shall remain stayed. The proceedings in the Court of Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly shall remain stayed. .