The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of rules 8 and 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure to reference proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.

( 1 ) THESE two sets of cases, viz. , M. F. As, 767/74, 79, 131, 188 and 243 of 1975 and C. R. Ps. 1442/74 and 475 and 984 of 1975 though arise in different sets of circumstances, but involve a common question of law and hence would admit of determination by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE short question that falls for determination in these cases is, as to whether the provisions of rules 8 and 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to reference proceedings before the Civil Court of original jurisdiction launched under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).

( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding with the consideration of the legal point aforesaid, it would be desirable, at this stage, to take note of a few relevant facts which can be stated thus:- After references had been made under Section 18 of the Act by the Collector and the Court was seized of the matter, at one stage or the other of the said proceedings, the claimants absented themselves which led to the dismissal of the concerned references in default. The claimants applied to the Court under O. IX, R. 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the restoration of the respective references and for the setting aside of the order dismissing the same in default. The reference Court rejected those applications on the ground that the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 being inapplicable to reference proceedings, the same were consequently not maintainable.

( 4 ) BY way of sample, one such order is reproduced below:" this is an application to set aside the ex parte order of dismissal dated 12-11-1973 in L. A. C. No. 26 of 1970. Arguments were heard on the maintainability of the petition under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. 2. The point for determination is whether the application r/w Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure code is maintainable. 3. The High Court of Karnataka in M. S. Ramaiah v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1974) 1 kant LJ 231 = (AIR 1974 Kant 122) held that an application under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil procedure Code, is not maintainable. His Lordship observed that the remedy for the petitioners is to prefer an appeal against the order of the dismissal and that they cannot maintain an application under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. In view of the finding of the Hon'ble High Court, I hold that the present petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. " (Vide Misc. 185 of 73 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore city ).

( 5 ) SOME of the claimants challenged such orders directly in the High Court while others approached the District Judge. Such of them as had approached the District Judge by way of appeal met with no better fate as the District Judge concurring in the view that had been taken by the original court dismissed the appeals. This led them to challenge the said orders in revision in this Court, and that is how these two sets of cases are before this Court.

( 6 ) OPPOSITION to the application of the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of Order IX of the Code of civil Procedure to reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Act rests primarily on two grounds (1) That reference proceedings are not in the nature of civil proceedings and thus, strictly speaking, there being no plaintiff or defendant before the Court, provisions of Order IX Rules 8 and 9 would not be attracted to reference proceedings and the other ground stems from the construction of the provisions of Section 26 (1) of the Act.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to the respondents, the only construction that can be put on the provisions of section 26 is that reference proceedings once launched must culminate in an award. In other words that reference proceedings do not admit of termination by any order, which is not in the nature of an award. On the strength of the aforesaid construction it is being contended that it was not open to the Court, which was s