Anant Ram vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.

1 By means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.6.1995 whereby his applications for restoration of the main revision petitions which were dismissed in default were rejected.

2 The undisputed facts are that the present Petitioner had filed two revision petitions before the learned Financial Commissioner being Civil Revision No. 171 of 1982 titled Anant Ram v. Chunha and the second being Civil Revision No. 172 of 1982 titled Anant Ram v. Shakuntala. It is apparent that both these matters were heard together. It is also apparent from the record that the Petitioner used to appear in person and was not represented by any counsel.

On 4th April, 1991 the Petitioner was not present and the two petitions were dismissed in default vide order dated 4.4.1991. Applications for restoration were filed and these applications being miscellaneous application No. 94 of 1991 and 95 of 1991 were taken up on 10.08.1992 when again the applicant did not appear and the applications were dismissed in default. Thereafter, two more applications being Misc. Application No. 144 of 1992 and 145 of 1992 for restoration of these applications were filed and due to non appearance of the Petitioner these applications were dismissed on 14.10.1992. However, as far as the order dated 14.10.1992 is concerned the same was recalled by the Financial Commissioner himself and therefore this Court is only concerned with the order dated 10.8.1992.

As far as this order is concerned, it is apparent from the record that on 10.8.1992 the Petitioner, who at the relevant time was 73 years old, had sent a telegram to the Court of Financial Commissioner informing him that he was unwell and had also undertaken to produce the medical certificate. True it is that the Petitioner had defaulted on more than two occasions but I am of the considered view that in these long standing disputes a Petitioner should not be non suited on technicalities and the matter should be decided on merits.

The manner in which the Financial Commissioner dismissed the applications without making reference to the averments made in the applications was not proper. He should have either found that the applicant had not made out a good case for restoration or should have restored the case. He could not go into the previous conduct of the Petitioner in dismissing the applications and it was only the conduct of the Petitioner on the last date which could have been seen. For that date the Petitioner had sent a telegram stating that he was unwell and the matter be adjourned.

Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the parties have been litigating for the last more than 30 years both in the Revenue Courts and Civil Courts, I feel it could never be in the interest of the Petitioner to get his case dismissed in default. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the Petitioner at the relevant time was 73 years and may actually have been suffering from some ailment.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is set-aside and both the petitions being Civil Revision No. 171 of 1982 titled Anant Ram v. Chunna and the second being Civil Revision No. 172 of 1982 titled Anant Ram v. Shakuntala are restored to their original number. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 24th December, 2010. No order as to costs.