2008 (4) TMI 544 - SC - Indian Laws

Land Acquisition Act - appeal - respondent is a Bhumidar and in possession of the suit land and the transfer of possession by the U.P. Government to the appellant was not proved Held that - High Court has altogether failed to consider the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.- even the application under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has not been dealt with in its correct perspective and the High Court was in error in rejecting the same on the sole ground that such an application was not maintainable at the stage of second appeal - High Court was not even aware of the pendency of the application under order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking leave to adduce additional evidence - additional documents sought to be admitted necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the application and if not the application would have been dismissed - judgment and the orders are erroneous and cannot be sustained - matter is remitted back to the High court

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court on the ground of no substantial question of law.
2. Rejection of the appellant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement.
3. Dismissal of the appellant's application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for adducing additional evidence.
4. Dismissal of the appellant's review application by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of the Second Appeal:
The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the North Eastern Railway Administration, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the appellant's application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., which sought to introduce additional evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must thoroughly examine the record and pending applications before disposing of the appeal.

2. Rejection of the Amendment Application (Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.):
The High Court dismissed the appellant's application to amend the written statement, citing that such an application cannot be entertained at the stage of the second appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. allows for the amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings if it satisfies the conditions of not causing injustice to the other side and being necessary to determine the real questions in controversy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the amendment application solely on the ground of its maintainability at the second appeal stage.

3. Dismissal of the Application for Additional Evidence (Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.):
The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence, alleging that the respondent obtained the decree by concealing material facts. The Supreme Court highlighted that under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., additional evidence can be admitted if it is required to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The High Court failed to consider this application, which the Supreme Court found to be a significant oversight. The Supreme Court pointed out that the additional documents could materially affect the decision, especially in determining whether the decree was obtained by fraud.

4. Dismissal of the Review Application:
The appellant's review application was dismissed by the High Court without considering the material facts that allegedly escaped the Court's attention. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's dismissal of the review application, along with the applications for urging additional grounds, was erroneous and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgments and orders dated 17th July 2002 and 14th June 2005, and remitted the matter back to the High Court. The High Court was directed to hear the parties afresh, consider the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., and then form a new opinion on the merits of the second appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that it did not express any final opinion on the merits of the second appeal or the applications, leaving these to be decided by the High Court in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.