AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 211 words@DELETEUPPERDATA
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 30th July, 2013 passed by the ADM (F/R), Mathura in Stamp Case No. 94/2013-14, under section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the petitioner has preferred a Revision No. 442/2013 before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in which an interim order dated 5th December, 2013 was passed for a month subject to verification of amount deposited by the petitioner. But the said interim order is not being extended.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his revision may be directed to be decided at an early date which is not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the Revision No. 442/2013, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified coy of this order is filed. Writ petition is disposed of. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 1 for interim relief before whom, revision is pending.