JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur dated 27-10-1998 in Tribunal Appeal No. B-109/5/98 decided.

2. This writ petition was heard on 17-8-2000 and the judgment was also pronounced in open Court. However, immediately before rising of the Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter and urged that the judgment may not be signed since vital matters have not been brought to the notice of the Court including the decision of this Court reported in 1987(2) Bom.C.R. 261 (Barikrao Nayansing Rajput v. Bandu Ana Bhil and others)1. At that time the Counsel for the respondent had already left the Court and therefore, the petitioners' Counsel was asked to inform the other side and mention the matter by giving notice to the other side. The matter was once again mentioned before me on 22-8-2000 and a request for rehearing the matter was made, when the Counsel for the contesting respondent i.e. respondent No. 3 was present alongwith the Counsel for the petitioners. By consent the matter was placed for hearing on 8-9-2000. However, it appears that the proceedings for mentioning which took place in chamber at 4.15 p.m. on 22-8-2000 have not been recorded. Nevertheless the matter was fixed for hearing on 8-9-2000, however, the matter could not be taken up for hearing due to paucity of time. The matter reached for hearing on 14-9-2000 but was adjourned for today. The matter has reached today for hearing.

3. Today the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 has taken objection for rehearing of the matter by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. page 371 (Vinod Kumar v. Banaras Hindu University and others)2, to contend that since the judgment was pronounced in the open Court, though not signed, the Court has become functus officio for which it would be impermissible for this Court to rehear the matter. This objection has been countered by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on the same judgment in para 8 of the said decision which is reproduced thus :

"There may be exceptions to the rule, for instance, soon after the judgment is dictated in open Court, a feature which had not been placed for consideration of the Court is brought to its notice by Counsel of any of the parties or the Court discovers some new facts from the record. In such a case the Court may give direction that the judgment which has been delivered would not be effective and the case shall be further heard. There may also be cases though their number would be few and fair between where when the judgment is placed for signature the Court notices a feature which should have been taken into account. In such a situation the matter may be placed for further consideration upon notice to the parties. If the judgment delivered is intended not to be operative, good reasons should be given".

4. In my view since the Counsel for the petitioner submits that certain vital aspects of the case have not been looked into, including the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, it would be expedient that the matter is reheard and decide in accordance with law. The learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioner No. 1 is already 71 years of age and pendency of the matter requiring the petitioner to take recourse to other proceedings would unnecessarily delay the matter. It appears from the proceedings that this Court expressed concerned for the pendency of the matter particularly because the petitioner No. 1 was already 70 years old widow and fighting the litigation for number of orders. In the circumstances, I am of the view that to do substantial justice in the matter, and also because no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the matter is reheard with the able assistance of the Counsel for both the sides, and for arriving at a correct decision, it would be expedient to rehear the case. In the circumstances, I proceed to overrule the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document