Allahabad High Court

SUHAIL KHAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VINOD DIWAKAR

Holding

The dismissal of the appeal on limitation alone is set aside; the delay is condoned and the appeal must be heard on its merits.

Summary

The petitioners challenged an ex‑parte order dated 25‑08‑2026 that dismissed their appeal against a stamp‑duty assessment on a gift deed, solely on the ground of delay. They argued that the deed, executed between close relatives, was exempt from stamp duty and that the delay was not wilful. The State contended that no exemption existed at the time of execution and that the assessment was lawful. The High Court observed that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal without considering its merits, thereby depriving the petitioners of a substantive hearing. Since the question of exemption involves mixed law and fact, the court held that justice required a fresh hearing on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, the delay condoned, and the appeal was directed to be heard afresh within three months.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the appeal under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act can be condoned despite the limitation period.
Whether an appellate authority may dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the merits.
Whether a gift deed executed between close relatives is exempt from stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Legislation cited

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 — s. 56, 56(1)

Subjects

stamp duty
Indian Stamp Act
gift deed exemption
limitation period
appeal condonation
writ petition
ex‑parte order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 38188 of 2026

Suhail Khan And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jamal Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 38
HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Siddharth Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and perused the
record.

2. The present petition assails the ex-parte order dated 25.08.2026, passed by
respondent no.2 in Appeal Case No.1996 of 2026 under Section 56(1) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whereby the petitioners' appeal was dismissed on
the ground of delay, without adverting to the merits. The said appeal had
been preferred against the ex-parte order dated 03.10.2025, passed by
respondent no.3 under Section 56 of the Act, assessing and levying a
deficiency in stamp duty on the gift deed executed in favour of the
petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the gift deed was
executed between close relatives, the petitioners were entitled to exemption
from stamp duty, a fact not considered by respondent no.3, rendering the
assessment order erroneous. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the
appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate but occasioned by bona fide reasons,
and the appellate authority, by dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of
limitation without examining its merits, has deprived the petitioners of an
effective remedy.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that no
provision existed, at the time the gift deed was executed, exempting it from
the levy of stamp duty, and the assessment made by respondent no.3 was
accordingly in accordance with law.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the appeal was dismissed by respondent no.2
solely on the ground of delay, without any consideration of the merits. Since
a valuable right of appeal has been foreclosed on a technical ground, and
since the applicability of exemption is a mixed question of law and fact
requiring examination by the competent appellate forum in the first instance,
it would be in the interest of justice to afford the petitioners an opportunity
WRIC No. 38188 of 2026
2

to have their appeal heard and decided on merits.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the following
directions: (i) The impugned order dated 25.08.2026, passed by respondent
no.2, is set aside; (ii) The delay in filing the appeal is condoned; (iii) The
respondent no.2 shall decide the appeal afresh, on merits and in accordance
with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of
a certified copy of this order.
September 23, 2026
Anil K. Sharma
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…