SANJAY PAKHTOON Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) is directed against the order dated 3.4.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad allowing the appeal of the defendant-respondent No. 1 vide which the order dated 26.10.1998 was challenged. In his order dated 26.10.1998, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad had allowed an application filed under Order XXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code filed by the plaintiff-petitioner restraining the defendant-respondent No. 1 from recovering the house tax as demanded in its various orders by way of assessment of rent in respect of premises No. 301, Sector 24, Faridabad. The Civil Judge has also directed the plaintiff- petitioner to deposit 50% of the house tax amount out of total sum of Rs. 1,04,299.10 paise.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that plaintiff-petitioner has filed Civil Suit No. 129 of 1998/97 on 17.12.1997 for declaration and consequent relief of permanent injunction to the effect that the demand of house tax for an amount of Rs. 1.04.299.10 paise raised by the defendant-respondent No. 1 is illegal and unsustainable. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code for ad interim injunction was also filed. Plaintiff-petitioner succeeded in persuading the Civil Judge to partially accept their prayer for ad interim injunction. However, the order passed by the Civil Judge was set aside in appeal by the Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 3.4.2002. The order passed by the Additional District Judge read as under :-

(3.) THE argument is absolutely misconceived because it appears to be well settled that all encumbrances on properties continues to be attached with the property irrespective of the fact who has been its owner. Therefore, even if there is change of ownership, the payment of house tax cannot be avoided on that account. I am further of the view that in matter concerning the revenue of the State, no interim directions could be issued and for that reason, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge is consistent with the well seated principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others, AIR 1985 SC 330. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.