BAKSHEESH KAUR Vs. MURTU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present matter has come up for hearing before me in pursuance to order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Honble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 1222 of 2005. The Honble High Court while quashing the orders dated 18.10.2005 passed by my predecessor in Revision No. 08/2002 had observed as under : - In the present case, the only question to be gone into by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was whether the appellate authority had correctly rejected the application preferred by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or not alone, but the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has touched the very merits of the case and ultimately he had set aside the order passed by the authorities below. - The Honble High Court had remanded back the matter for decision afresh. The present petitioner Smt. Baksheesh Kaur had gone in appeal before a Division Bench of the Honble High Court in LPA No. 4 of 2008 which vide orders dated 4.4.2008 directed the undersigned to decide the revision within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of their orders became available.

(2.) IN compliance to the order of the Honble High Court of H.P., the revision petition No. 08/2002 has been restored and is being decided keeping in view the observation made by the Honble High Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the documents being sought to be placed on record cannot be taken cognizance of. He cited the Honble Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Major K.K. Taneja, AIR 1992 Delhi 192 in this regard. According to him, the only issue before this Court is whether the learned District Collector has rightly refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. He contended that the application filed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade was contested on behalf of the petitioner. Further, he argued, the petitioner was represented through various counsel before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. He argued that the conduct of the petitioner does not warrant interference as brought out in the well reasoned order of the District Collector dated 25.9.2000. He cited the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India, 1993 SCC 572 and the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sukhwinder Singh and others v. Surinder Pal and others, CCC 1995(2) 673 to fortify his argument. He contended that there should be sufficient cause - to condone delay which is not apparent in this case.