A RAMACHANDRA RAJU Vs. BOPPUDI GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these four Civil Revision Petitions, the parties are the same and a common question arises for consideration As such these four revision petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner in all the four revision petitions is an Ex-Sarpanch of Boppudi Gram Panchayat, the respondent herein. Under Rule 5 of the Rules relating to Audit, Surcharge Disallowance and Appeals (G 0 Ms No. 569 dated 13-5- 1965) an auditor issued four surcharge certificates S C L F Nos. 935, 936, 937, and 938 of 1980 dated 18-2-1981 surcharging an amount of Rs. 18, 000/-on the petitioner herein. The respondent herein filed four execution petitions before the court below to recover the amount of surcharge due from the petitioner. In all the execution petitions an order was passed on 25-1-1983 directing arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner filed applications for setting aside the order of arrest in each one of the four execution petitions but they were dismissed for default. Then applications were filed by the petitioner for restoration of the applications dismissed for default. As the applications for restoration were filed one day beyond the period of limitation, the petitioner filed applications for condonation of delay. The executing court has dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to petitions filed under Or. 21 Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, the other petitions filed for restoration of the petitions dismissed for default' were also dismissed.

(3.) Pending disposal of the petitions filed for condonation of delay, the petitioner filed applications in each one of the four Execution Petitions to dismiss the execution petitions in view of an order dated 19-7-1982 passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government Panchayat Raj department granting stay of recovery of the surcharged amounts covered by the said four surcharge certificates dated 18-2-1981, pending disposal of the -appeal filed by the petitioner herein. The court below, having dismissed the applications filed for condonation of delay, dismissed the four applications filed on 30-3-1983 by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the four execution petitions even without numbering the same. Questioning the validity of the said orders passed by the lower Court in the four applications the petitioner has preferred these four revision petitions.