IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Tribunal must consider the relevancy of additional matters sought to be ascertained by the petitioner when deciding on requests to re-open evidence and remit back the commission report.

JUDGMENT :

G. GIRISH, J.

1. The applicant in O.A. No. 37 of 2019 of the files of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the said Tribunal refusing to re-open evidence and to remit back the commission report prepared in that case.

2. The Original Application before the Forest Tribunal is one filed under Section 8(1) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 seeking a declaration that the property scheduled thereunder is not a private forest vested with the Government, or in the alternative, a declaration that the said property is eligible for exemption under Section 3(2) of the aforesaid Act. An Advocate Commissioner deputed from the Tribunal had conducted local investigation and filed a report and sketch. During the course of trial, after the examination of the applicant, the Advocate Commissioner, and witness for respondent, an amendment application was filed for incorporating the old survey numbers 230/4 and 230/5 in the property schedule. The above amendment application was allowed by the Forest Tribunal at a stage when the evidence in the case was closed. The respondents filed additional counter statement along with a survey sketch of the property comprised in Survey No. 230. In the above circumstances, the applicant filed I.A. No. 184 of 2023 for re-opening the evidence and I.A. No. 185 of 2023 to remit back the commission report for the purpose of ascertaining and reporting the land comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers, on the basis of the forest sketch and Field Measurement Book produced by the respondents. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the above applications, the petitioner is here before this Court with this petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents.

4. The impugned order declining the request of the petitioner to re-open the evidence and to remit back the commission report, has been passed by the Forest Tribunal on the basis of the observation that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the matter indefinitely, and that on several earlier occasions the evidence was re-opened at the request of the petitioner. There is no other reasoning in the impugned order for rejecting the request of the petitioner in this regard.

5. It is true that the petitioner has made the request for reopening evidence and to remit back the commission report for a further enquiry in respect of the land comprised in the survey numbers incorporated in the schedule by way of amendment, at the fag end of the trial. It is also true that the respondents filed additional counter statement along with a sketch in view of the amendment made by the petitioner to the schedule of property forming part of the Original Application after the closure of the evidence. But once the amendment has been allowed and certain new particulars have been incorporated into the schedule of properties, the Tribunal cannot shut the doors against the petitioner, and say the reason that it is intended to protract the matter indefinitely, when a request is made to re-open the evidence to bring in additional particulars related to the new aspects incorporated by way of amendment. Of course, it is true that as per Order XXVI Rule 10(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Tribunal is expected to remit back the commission report and order further enquiry, if only it is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner. However, when a party requests for further enquiry on the basis of the new aspects brought out in the pleadings by way of amendment, and seeks to have a commission report on the matters related to such new aspects which are relevant for the just disposal of the case, the court is expected to allow such application even though the commission report which is already on record does not contain anything objectionable for the court to be dissatisfied.

6.