CHARAN DASS Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned in the present writ petition relates to sanction of mutation No.1830 concerning inherence of Raghubir Dass in favour of petitioner, Charan Dass. Against the order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhatinda, in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.5 filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 20.1.1989. The Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, dismissed the revision filed against the said order on 17.2.1998. This order was impugned before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), who has now accepted and the mutation is approved in favour of respondent No.5.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the fact that the then Financial Commissioner decided this revision on 15.9.2005 while the case was reserved after hearing the arguments on 21.7.2005. Not only that, the counsel also points out that application for supply of certified copy was made on 22.5.2006 but the copy was made ready on 7.1.2008 and accordingly supplied on 9.1.2008. Counsel for the petitioner would, thus, say that this in itself should be enough to indicate that the Financial Commissioner had taken unreasonably long time to pronounce the order and thereafter order perhaps was not ready for number of years. It can be seen that the copy of the judgment was ultimately delivered almost after four years of the hearing of the arguments.

(3.) In this regard reference may be made to the case of Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and others v. HPA International and others, 2000 2 SCC 13, where it was observed by the Supreme Court that when the judgment is delivered after long delay from the date of hearing was held, it may give rise to unnecessary speculations to the minds of the parties in the case. It is also observed that the party whose appeal is ultimately dismissed may justifiably fear that the arguments raised at the bar may not have been reflected upon or appreciate by the Court at the time of dictating the judgment. The judgment in appeal accordingly was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the same was remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed this judgment in Kanhaiyalal v. Anupkumar, 2003 1 RCR(Civ) 293by observing that long delay in delivery of judgment is sufficient to set-aside the same without going into any other question involved. Since, the case was pronounced after considerable delay from the date of hearing of arguments and the copy of the order was not available till the year 2008, it would be reasonable to infer that the judgment though pronounced may not be available for delivery to the parties. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12912 of 2003 titled Court of its own motion v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 15.10.2004, has observed that " the judgment is delivered when it is pronounced by reading out the relevant and/or operative part thereof, the whole judgment or its copy is required to be made available immediately for the perusal of the parties or their advocates."