JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 22-9-2021 contained in Annexure-P/1.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had purchased e-stamps amounting to Rs. 62,515/- on 20-1-2020 as the deed for which the same were purchased, could not be executed, therefore, the petitioner made an application seeking refund towards e-stamps through online mode on 1-4-2021. He further contends that said application through online mode was submitted on account of outbreak of Covid-19. Thereafter, upon relaxation from the lock-down, an application was physically submitted by the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-P/4 dated 30-6-2021. The application filed by the petitioner under section 50(2) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1899’) has been declined on the ground that the same has been submitted beyond the period of six months as provided under section 50(2) of the Act, 1899. He further submits that an application for refund was moved online on 1-4-2021, which is contained in Annexure-P/3 and the respondents do not dispute that the petitioner herein applied online for refund of e-stamps on 1-4-2021. However, the respondents in view of the provisions of section 50(2) of the Act, 1899, have proceeded to decline the request of the petitioner on the misconceived ground that the same was submitted physically by the petitioner on 30-6-2021 and the same was barred by limitation. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mr. Rajeev Nohwar vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharashtra State, Pune and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 863.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents while taking this Court to paragraphs-6 and 7 of the return, submits that the refund in terms of section 50(2) of the Act, 1899, is only permissible if the same has been sought within a period of six months from the issuance of the stamps but, in the present case, the application contained in Annexure-P/4 was submitted by the petitioner on 30-6-2021 and accordingly, the same has rightly been declined having been filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under section 50(2) of the Act, 1899. Therefore, counsel submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.

5. In the present case, undisputedly, e-stamps of Rs. 62,515/- were purchased by the petitioner way back on 20-11-2020. The e-stamps were not used as no deed was executed and accordingly, the petitioner sought refund while submitting an application through online mode on 1-4-2021. The details of said application have been brought on record as Annexure-P/3 to the petition and it is further stated by the petitioner in the petition that on account of outbreak of Covid-19, usual working of all the offices came to stand still, thus, upon relaxation from lock-down, an application was filed physically by the petitioner on 30-6-2021 contained in Annexure-P/4. Thus, the petitioner moved an application well within six months and the petitioner has shown vigilance which is evident from Annexure-P/3. It is also not a case of the respondents that the petitioner has taken recourse to dilatory tactics.

6. The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the substantive right of the party unless they take recourse to dilatory tactics and there is no deliberate or willful delay. The Apex Court, in paragraph-11 in the case of N. Balakrishnan (Supra), has held as under :—

“11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limit