Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case petitioner is entitled to avail benefit under Section 14 of Limitation Act.

Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority (Respondent No. 2), as well as order dated 17.02.2000, passed by the Deputy Collector (Respondent No. 3).

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, entered into a Sale Deed dated 10.11.1997 for land admeasuring 7315 sq.mtrs. situated at Block No. 471, Village Dalpura, Taluka Prantij, District Sabarkantha. According to the petitioner, by inadvertence, the Sale Deed was executed between the same parties, as the name of the petitioner-Company had been changed on 24.05.1993. The Sale Deed came to be presented to the Sub-Registrar, Prantij vide Document No. 992/1997 on 11.10.1997 for the purpose of registration. The Sub-Registrar forwarded the same to Respondent No. 3 for proper determination of duty under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (“the Act”, for short). Respondent No. 3 passed order dated 17.02.2000 under Section 32(A) of the Act determining the market value of the property at Rs. 35,35,400/- and demanding payment of Rs. 1,25,040/- as stamp duty and Rs. 250/- as penalty from the petitioner, to be paid within 90 days. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a Civil Suit before the Court of 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha at Himmatnagar. The Civil Suit was filed on 26.04.2000 and remained pending upto 31.01.2011, on which date it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. After dismissal of the Civil Suit, the petitioner approached Respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Section 53(1) of the Act, by filing an appeal. The appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by impugned order dated 14.03.2011, passed by Respondent No. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

4. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Respondent No. 2 has not granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 14.03.2011. That, it ought to have been appreciated by the said respondent that after passing of the order dated 17.02.2000 by Respondent No. 3, the petitioner had been pursuing the wrong remedy of a Civil Suit, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period spent between the filing of the suit and the date of order in the suit, could not have been counted for the purpose of calculating the period of 90 days for preferring an appeal, as per Section 51 of the Act. Restricting his contentions to the above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the interest of justice would be met, if the matter is remanded to Respondent No. 2 for fresh hearing, and the petitioner is permitted to raise his contentions regarding exclusion of the period spent while pursuing a wrong remedy, before the said authority. In support of the above submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:

(1) Gulbarga University vs. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court (Supp.) 1281.

(2) Metro Hospital & Research Institute, Vadodara vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2009) 2 GLR 1537.

5. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court judgment dated 5.2.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2007/2009 in Special Civil Application No. 3902/2009, wherein the Division Bench has considered Section 14 of the Limitation Act. He has submitted that in view of the law