Back
B.N. AGRAWAL, G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.
Prem Chand and Others - Appellants
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. and Others - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5230 OF 2008
Decided On: 25-08-2008
Evidence - Compromise Decree - Interpretation of Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act
Fact of the Case:
The High Court set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer, Additional Commissioner, and Board of Revenue, and remanded the matter to the Original Authority with a direction to frame an additional issue regarding the compromise decree under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the direction to decide the case on the basis of existing material and not allowing further evidence was unwarranted, and allowed the appeal in part, modifying the impugned order to allow the parties to lead further evidence after framing the additional issue.
Issues: The issue revolved around the direction given by the High Court to the Original Authority to decide the case on the basis of existing material and not allow further evidence, in the context of a compromise decree under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the direction to decide the case on the basis of existing material and not allowing further evidence was unjustified, and modified the impugned order to allow the parties to lead further evidence after framing the additional issue.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the impugned order was modified to allow the parties to lead further evidence after framing the additional issue, with a reiterated direction to dispose of the proceeding within six months.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer (Original Authority), Additional Commissioner, Meerut (First Appellate Authority) and Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh (Second Appellate Authority) and remanded the matter to the Original Authority with the direction to frame an additional issue as to whether the compromise decree was passed in the suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and its effect. While doing so, the High Court directed that the Original Authority shall decide the case on the basis of the material existing on record and no party shall be allowed to lead any further evidence.
4. In our opinion, when the High Court directed the Original Authority to frame an additional issue and decide the matter afresh, there was no justification to direct that the case be decided on the basis of existing material and no party shall allowed to lead further evidence. This direction is wholly unwarranted.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part, impugned order is modified to this extent that, after framing issue, as directed by the High Court, the Original Authority shall give opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence.
6. As the matter has become very old, we reiterate the direction of the High Court that proceeding shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of order of High Court and this order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
