CHARAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Sartaj Kumar filed a suit for ejectment against her tenant Charan Singh in the Court of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. This suit was decreed on 31st of August, 1965. The appeal filed by Charan Singh was partly allowed by the Collector vide his order dated 29th March, 1966. The order regarding payment of arrears of rent was set aside but the order of ejectment was maintained by him. Dissatisfied with the order, Charan Singh, petitioner, filed a revision in the Court of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, within two months of the order of the Collector. A prayer was made therein that recommendations be made to the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the order of ejectment.

(2.) The office raised certain minor objections to the petition and the same was returned on 1st of June, 1966, for the rectification of the defects pointed out. The petitioner in compliance with the office objections made necessary rectification on 6th June, 1966. The office was satisfied with this. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Commissioner admitted the revision and issued notice to the respondent on 25th of July, 1966. The revision petition came up for regular hearing on 7th November, 1966. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondent No. 3, the landlady, that the revision was not accompanied by a decree-sheet and it was insufficiently stamped with court-fee. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a short adjournment to make good the deficiency of court-fee and to file the decree-sheet. The adjournment was allowed. The copy of the decree-sheet was filed and the deficiency in court-fee was made good. It may be mentioned at this stage that no statutory period of limitation for filing such revision petitions was prescribed. The learned counsel for the landlady argued before the Commissioner that the copy of the decree-sheet had been filed beyond limitation, that the deficiency of the court-fee has also been made good after that period, and hence, the revision petition was liable to be dismissed. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that it was imperative for the petitioner to file a copy of the decree-sheet and to pay the requisite court-fee within 90 days of the passing of the impugned order. He held that the provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter I-A of Volume 5 of the Rules & Orders framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers given by Part 10 of Civil Procedure Code were applicable to the revision petitions and as such, the revision petition should have been accompanied by a copy of the decree as required by law. He refused to follow the ratio of a decision of Shri R.S. Randhawa, Financial Commissioner in Gugan Singh V. Ram Pal,1962 LLT 60, wherein it has been held that Order 41, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, and Rule 7 of Chapter 1-A Vol. V of High Court Rules and Orders do not apply to the Revenue Courts. He dismissed the revision petition.

(3.) Charan Singh filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed by him on 2nd of December, 1967. He affirmed the findings of the Commissioner. The present petition has been filed for quashing the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.