CHANDER BHAN Vs. COLLECTOR GURGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of the appellate authority-respondent No. 3 by which his appeal was dismissed as being barred by time. While filing the appeal, the petitioner had filed an application seeking condonation of delay mainly on the ground that as his wife had fallen ill he could not prefer the appeal within the time specified by the statute. He had also submitted that he was not properly served and the period of limitation should be deemed to have commenced from the date of his knowledge and not from the date of the issuance of the notice. However, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon did not accept either of the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. It was held that as no medical certificate regarding the illness of the wife of the petitioner was produced, the allegation regarding her illness could not be accepted. The appellate court further held that the plea of the petitioner regarding knowledge about the passing of the order had been devised to make it compatible with the date of the application for the certified copy of the impugned order. It was further held that the period of limitation would start from the date of the order and not from the date of the knowledge.

(2.) Heard. Section 47-A(4) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 provides :

(3.) The learned appellate authority on emphasising the words, "the date of the order" impliedly came to the conclusion that service of the notice for the purposes of applicability of S. 47-A of the Act was not relevant and that the person aggrieved was under a legal obligation to file an appeal within thirty days from the date of order under all circumstances notwithstanding his service or otherwise in the main proceedings.