Rajeev Kumar v. State Of Punjab & Others

C.R. No.3331 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3331 of 2016 Date of Decision.07.12.2016 Rajeev Kumar .......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab through its Collector and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab for the respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the dismissal of the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 99 days in filing the statutory appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in essence, against the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2015.

Mr. Alok Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that delay was not intentional but owing to the reasons explained in the application. The Court below dismissed the application as the same was stated to be not backed by any cogent reasons, in essence, lacked explanation. In support of his contention, he relies upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. In fact, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of `79,000/- on account of deposit of enhanced registration tax and assailed PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.12.13 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.3331 of 2016 -2the action of the State for accepting the more amount than the one required for registration of Tata Fortuner, SUV.

No doubt, the law of limitation has been debated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many judgments but in view of the principle culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee's case (supra), I am of the view that opportunity of hearing on merits should have been granted instead of applying rigorous of Limitation Act in strict sense. For the reasons aforementioned, the order under challenge is set aside. Delay of 99 days is condoned and the appeal is ordered to be restored, however, it shall be subject to costs of `10,000/- to be deposited in Advocates' Welfare Fund of this High Court. The revision petition is allowed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 07, 2016 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.12.13 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document