MAHANT BIKRAM DASS CHELA versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 262 · Decided: 03-08-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
-'262 
• 
MAHANT BIKRAM DASS CHELA 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, 
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS 
August 3, 1977 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. S. KAJLASAM JJ.] 
. Li111ita.tion Act 1963, Sections 5, 117-Whether rcquiren1ent of filing suffi-
c1e1~t copies of 1nemorand111n of appeal n1andatory-Whether not filing of the 
copies renders appeal tirne-barred-Civil Procedure Code, 0.41 r. 1-Rrtles and· 
orders of Punjab Hi'gh Court-Chapter I Volume V. 
The appellants filed two applications for the ejectment of the respondents 
on the ground that they failed to pay rent without sufficient cause. These appli-
cations. were dismissed first by the Assistant Collector and then by the Collector. 
The appellant then filed two revision applications to the Commissioner 
who 
made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner to the eitect that the 
orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector be set aside_ and a decree 
for ejectment be passed against the respondents. Financial Cominissioner passed 
a decree evicting the respondents from the land in one revision application. In 
the other Revision Application_ the Financial COmmissioner held that the eject-
ment petition filed by the appellant had become infructuous in view of the 
fact that the land Vt'as required by the Amritsar Improvement Trust which had 
already taken possession thereof. The question of their ejectment 
did 
not 
arise for consideration. 
The appellant challenJ6:ed the decision of the Financial Commissioner 
by 
:filing a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The writ petition 
was dis1nissed by 
a single Judge on 10th November 1970. The appellant 
filed an appeal against that judgment under clause 10 of Lette!rs J;>atent to a 
Division Bench of the High Court. 
The Memorandum of Letters Patent Appeal against that 
judgment 
\Vas 
lodged by the appellant on December 23, 1970, which was 
within 
30 days 
from the date of the judgment appealed from. The Letter Patent 
Appeal 
came up for admission on February 24, 1971 when Division Bench iSsued notice 
to the respondent. 
Respondents raised an objection that the appeal was barred 
by limitation on the ground that though the memorandum of appeal was filed 
within 30 days of the- date of the judgment of single Judge, it \Vas not accom-
panied by 3 sets of documents which are requited to be filed under the rules 
of the High Court. Counsel for appellant then asked for an adjournment for 
filing an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 for condonatlon of 
delay. 
The matter was referred for opinion of a full Bench. The question Y..'hich 
the Division Bench, inter alia, referred to the Full Bench was as under : 
"Can an appeal undeir clause 10 of the Letters Patent be held 
to 
bl: 
incomplete or 'no appeal in the eye of Jaw' merely because it is 
not 
accompanied by the requisite three spare copies· of the paper book?" 
This question was answered by the full Bench thus : 
"the above discussion leads to the conclusion that if an appeal under 
clause 10 of the Letters Patent does not comply with the mandatory 
provision of Rule 3 of Chapter 2-e of .the High Court Rules by not 
filing 3 sets of typed copies of the documents, it has to be regarded as 
no appeal in the eyes of the law and shall not be deemed to be filed on 
that day. It shall be deemed to have been filed only on the day when 
it is complete in all respects as required by the Rules and is 
accepted 
to registration by the Registry." 
After deciding the question the Full Bench remitted the appeal to Division 
IHKRAM DASS v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (Chandrechud, J.) 263 
Bench and directed the Division Bench to deal ¥.'ith the application filed 
by 
A 
the appellant for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal. 
The Division Bench then took up the appeal for 
consideration 
of 
the 
question whether the delay caused in filing the appeal should 
be 
condoned 
under s. 5 of Limitation Act. It held that the appellant had failed to make 
out a case for condonation of delay and, therefore, dismissed it on the ground 
that i~ 'vas hatred by limitation. 
Allowing an appeal by certificate, 
HELD : For deciding the question ·whether the appeal is preferred in tin1e, 
the felevant provisions of the Li1nitation Act, the Civil Procedure Code and the 
Rules and Orders of the High Court must be noticed. [266C] 
Article 117 of Limitation Act 1963 prescribes a period of 30 days limita-
tion for filing an app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.