9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint family. There was a separation. The suit plot is said to have been noted in plaintiff's possession in 1936 Settlement and the plaintiff has been paying rent. The note in the record-of-rights Ext. 4 is "Jami O. Faldakhal Bishnu Putel." In 1954 the plaintiff obtained a separate Parcha with regard to plot 731 and other plots, and the plaintiff is paying the rent separately -- a rent receipt being Ext. 6 series. The defendant is said to have cut away trees from the suit land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. Thereupon on March 17, 1959 the plaintiff filed this suit for reliefs aforesaid. The defence is that the disputed portion did not relate to plot 731 as alleged : that the defendant is in possession of the disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laintiff to prove that the disputed portion is part of plot No. 731 and indeed a specific issue was raised before the trial Court, namely - "Is the suit land a part of plot No. 731 of holding No. 28?" It appears from record that the defendant had applied before the trial Court for appointment of an Amin Commissioner to locate the suit land. The plaintiff objected to this petition of the defendant for appointment of Amin Commissioner. The trial Court by his order dated March 27, 1961 rejected the defendant's application for appointment of Commissioner. 6. In course of hearing of this appeal it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the case should be remanded for a finding whether the disputed 40 decimal relate to plo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g evidence in the case but with open eyes failed to adduce that evidence, the caw should not be remanded to give a second chance to the party to adduce that evidence. The policy of the law is that, once the matter has been fairly tried between the parties, it should not, except in special circumstances be reopened and retried. In a recent decision their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that power to order retrial after remand, where there has already been a trial on evidence before the Court of first instance, cannot be exercised merely because the appellate Court is of the view that the parties who could lead better evidence in the Court if first instance have failed to do so. A Sankaramiah v. M. S. Lakshminarayanamoorthy, 4 S. C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
