MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AMRITSAR Vs. AMAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule obtained by the defendant, Municipal Committee, Amritsar, against a judgment and decree of Mr. Monahar Singh, Small Cause Court Judge, Amritsar, dated 18-10-1951, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 252/8/ -.

(2.) IN the year 1945 the Municipal Committee of Amritsar levied house-tax, but by a notification this house-tax was not recoverable from religious institutions. The Committee recovered a sum of Rs. 344/5/- as house-tax from the plaintiff who is the Mahant of Akhara New Panchayati, amritsar, for the years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1943-49. On 10-8-1949 a suit for perpetual injunction was brought by the present plaintiff restraining the Committee from realising any house-tax on Akhara property which was granted on 1-2-1951. The Committee refunded the tax for the year 1948-49 which was Rs. 91/13/-, but they refused to return the balance. The plaintiff thereupon brought a suit for the recovery of this money alleging that this tax was 'ultra vires' and the tax had been illegally recovered from the plaintiff. The suit was defended on the ground of limitation. The learned Judge has held that the suit is within limitation and has applied Article 96, Limitation ACT me municipal committee has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) MR. Grover has submitted that this Court should not interfere as substantial justice has been done and the mere fact that the Court may have taken an erroneous view on me question of limitation would not be any ground for interference by this Court on its revisional side. He has relied upon three judgments of the Lahore High Court. In the first one, -- 'ghasita v. Sultan', 93 pr 1911, Rattigan J. held that the Chief Court would not interfere, in the exercise of its discretional powers of revision, with an erroneous decision on the question of limitation where substantial justice had been done. The same view was taken by Addfson J. in -- 'karam chand-Sant Ram "v. Daya Nand-Damodar Das', AIR 1928 Lah 51 (2), and by Din Mohammad J. in -- 'charan Dass v. Ram Rattan', AIR 1935 Lah 137.