9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Finality of the original order dated February 17, 1958. 2. Applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Permissibility of successive applications under section 3 of the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951. Summary: 1. Finality of the Original Order: The Supreme Court examined whether the order dated February 17, 1958, which granted three annual instalments for payment, was final or interlocutory. The Court concluded that the order was final, stating, "The original order dated February 17, 1958, granting three annual instalments to the first respondent stated clearly that if he failed to pay the first instalment within the period mentioned therein, he would 'lose the benefit of the order of restoration.' This no doubt was a conditional order, but a conditional order is not necessarily an interlocutory order." The Court emphasized that the order had finality as it explicitly mentioned the loss of benefit upon failure to pay the first instalment within the specified period. 2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The Court addressed whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked for the application made on October 15, 1965. The Court held, "We do not see how section 5 could be invoked in connection with the application made on October 15, 1965, by the first respondent. Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, an appeal or application 'may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.' The Collector to whom the application was made was not a court, though section 15 of the Act vested him with certain specified powers under the Code of Civil Procedure." The Court concluded that section 5 was inapplicable as the application had no prescribed time limit and the Collector was not a court. 3. Permissibility of Successive Applications under Section 3: The Court examined whether successive applications under section 3 of the Act were permissible. It stated, "The question that arises therefore is, whether the Act permits successive applications to be made under section 3 giving rise to a fresh proceeding every time in respect of the same subject matter. Section 13 provides that every order passed by the Collector under the Act, subject to an order passed in appeal under section 16 would be final." The Court emphasized that allowing successive applications would undermine the finality of the Collector's orders and lead to uncertainty and confusion. The Court cited the principles of finality in litigation and the prohibition against vexing a person twice for the same cause, referencing Daryao & Ors. v. The State of U.P. & Ors. and Burn & Co. v. Their Employee. The Court concluded that the Additional Collector was correct in dismissing the application made on October 17, 1965, and allowed the appeal with costs. Appeal allowed.
|
