NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BHATINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1406 and 1696 of 1981, which contain the similar questions of law and fact. The facts in the judgment are being given from Civil Revision No. 1406 of 1981.

(2.) THE plaintiff instituted a suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, defendant No. 1, from recovering octroi from the plaintiff in pursuance of notices dated 10th Jan. , 1978, 14th Feb. , 1978, 14th April, 1978 and 23rd April, 1978 and also from recovering the same in future on the ground that it was illegal and against the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act. After the conclusion of the evidence of the defendants, time was given to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Municipal committee filed an application that it was not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as it had not reserved its right to do so. It was further stated that under the garb of the rebuttal evidence it wanted to fill in the lacuna in its evidence in affirmative, which it should not be allowed to do so. The trial Court accepted the application of the Municipal Committee and held that the plaintiff-petitioner could not be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. It has come up in revision against that order to this Court.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the Committee that the revision petition had not been filed by a duly authorised person. It has also been urged that the petitioner had not taken any decision to file a revision petition against the impugned order. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is argued that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision petition has been filed by a duly authorised person and he has also the right to take a decision. In the alternative he has submitted that the revision petition has been admitted by this Court and even if it is held that it was not filed by a duly authorised person, the Court cannot dismiss it now on this ground as it has the power to revise the impugned order under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') suo motu.