Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 May, 2011
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31157 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Vivek Srivastava,P.C. Trivedi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.Sahai, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents who agree for final disposal of the writ petition at the very outset.
The Additional Collector, Administration, Etah vide order dated 9.10.2003 determined deficiency in stamp duty in connection with the sale deed dated 17.11.1999. Against the said order petitioner filed revision under Section 56 of the Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. In revision, counsel for the parties were directed to file written arguments within a specified time. On failure of the petitioner to file written arguments, the revision was dismissed.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision could not have been dismissed for non filing of the written arguments and the authority ought to have decided the revision on merits or could have dismissed the same in default.
It is true that petitioner failed to submit written arguments within the time granted. However, the issue is whether on account of non-submission of written argument the revision could have been dismissed.
Generally, as a matter of fact, revisions or legal proceedings are decided on the basis of the pleadings and the arguments advanced on behalf of respective parties.
The concept of filing or submission of written arguments was totally alien to the judicial procedure. The parties were supposed to state the facts of their case, grounds of challenge and the relief claimed by way of pleadings and to substantiate the same by oral arguments. Thus, parties had the opportunity to plead in writing and to substantiate the pleadings by oral arguments. In other words, things which may not be explained in writing were permitted to be explained by oral submissions. Thus, pleadings and oral arguments were complimentary to one another and there was no concept of submission of written arguments.
It was lately that a trend of submitting written arguments in addition to pleadings and oral submissions came to be developed which also came to be recognised by the Civil Procedure Code.
It may be relevant to refer to Rule 2 of order XVIII CPC wherein by Act No. 22 of 2002 Sub Rule 3(A), 3(B), 3(C) and 3(D) have been added w.e.f. 1.7.2002 permitting the parties before conclusion of the of the oral arguments to submit written arguments, if the court so permits. Therefore, it is only with the permission of the Court that written arguments can be submitted before conclusion of the oral arguments or within time allowed by the Court.
The submission of written arguments is in addition to the oral arguments at the discretion of the Court but are not mandatory in nature. No penalty or any consequence for non filing the written statement within time allowed has been prescribed.
In view of the above, the submission of written arguments is only for the sake of convenience and probably to avoid long drawn arguments and delay but it can not be regarded as a thumb rule so as to authorize the Court or the authority to dismiss the case for non filing of the written statement.
In view of above, I am of the opinion that the revisional authority manifestly erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the revision for non filing of the written arguments. The revision ought to have been decided on the basis of the oral arguments advanced or, in case the revisionist was avoiding hearing, to have dismissed it in default.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra in Revision No.6 of 2003 is quashed with the direction to the revisional authority to hear the parties and decide the revision afresh in accordance with law on merits most expeditiously.
Petition allowed.
Order Date :- 26.5.2011
brizesh
