Vitthalrao Sadashivrao Tarale Vs. Moharashtra State Electricity Board and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Limitation |
| Mumbai High Court |
| Oct-06-2008 |
| Writ Petition No. 3358 of 2008 |
| Dhamadhikari B.P., J. |
| 2009(2)BomCR210 |
| Vitthalrao Sadashivrao Tarale |
| Moharashtra State Electricity Board and anr. |
| P.S. Patil, Adv. |
| M.A. Hussain, Adv. for respondent No. 1 |
.....and from 1.4.1979 under government notification dated 23.3.1979. thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty under article 36 of schedule i of the act. .....hence he states that the delay ought to have been condoned. even if it is accepted that reasons put forth in application are not just and sufficient, because of small delay, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. advocate hussain defends the impugned order and he states that the application as filed could itself have been self sufficient with necessary details. he states that serious prejudice would be caused to m.s.e.b. if the delay is condoned.3. i can not accept the reasons put forth by trial court for rejecting the doctor's certificate. moreover, explanation for that purpose has now come on record in the present writ petition. delay is of only 26 days. in these circumstances, delay is condoned subject to present petitioner paying respondent no. 1 m.s.e.b. rs. 1300/- by 20.10.2008. if the costs are so paid with the court of district judge -2 and additional sessions judge, achalpur, he should direct registration of the appeal filed by the present petitioner and to proceed for deciding it in accordance with law. rule accordingly.
Dhamadhikari B.P., J.
1. Heard Advocate Patil for petitioner and Advocate Hussain for respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2. Considering the nature of controversy, the matter is heard finally.
2. Advocate Patil points out that Court below has not condoned the delay of 26 days in filing appeal on the ground that petitioner has brought certificate of doctor from some other place with which he had no connection. Advocate Patil informs that brother in law of petitioner resides at that place and petitioner has taken treatment from doctor practicing there. He also invites attention to statement made on affidavit in this petition. Hence he states that the delay ought to have been condoned. Even if it is accepted that reasons put forth in application are not just and sufficient, because of small delay, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Advocate Hussain defends the impugned order and he states that the application as filed could itself have been self sufficient with necessary details. He states that serious prejudice would be caused to M.S.E.B. if the delay is condoned.
3. I can not accept the reasons put forth by trial Court for rejecting the doctor's certificate. Moreover, explanation for that purpose has now come on record in the present writ petition. Delay is of only 26 days. In these circumstances, delay is condoned subject to present petitioner paying respondent No. 1 M.S.E.B. Rs. 1300/- by 20.10.2008. If the costs are so paid with the Court of District Judge -2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, he should direct registration of the appeal filed by the present petitioner and to proceed for deciding it in accordance with law. Rule accordingly.