Kadan Manjhi and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—All these appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 25.02.2009, passed in respect of

L.A. Case No. 04/2005 to 17/2005 by learned Sub Judge-II, Seraikella Kharsawan. The impugned order indicates that the appellants had failed

to adduce evidence even after availing sufficient opportunities and therefore, the aforesaid L.A., Cases, preferred by the appellants stood

dismissed and the awards granted in their favour were confirmed.

It is submitted that only on account of non-production of witnesses, the impugned order was passed which is highly erroneous, illegal and liable

to be set aside. The other aspects which the appellants had raised before the Court below have not been addressed. Learned Court below has

wrongly recorded that the appellants had received the award amount without any objection. The documents filed by them were clearly indicating

that they had received the amount with protest. It is desirable for the ends of justice that the appellants may be given limited opportunity at least to

adduce their evidences and place the documents and grievances before the learned Sub-Judge which happens to be a trial Court and the order

should not have been passed sitting as appellate Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has raised objection and argued that learned Sub-Judge-II has rightly passed the impugned order when

no evidence was adduced and the appellants had failed to substantiate their grievances before learned Sub-Judge-II. As a matter of fact, the

award was received by them without objection and the reference was beyond period of limitation. Therefore, no reference could have been made.

Be that as it may, in the interest of justice the appellants should have been given opportunity to substantiate their grievances raised. It is true that

few adjournments were given to them which they could not avail due to the reasons they had assigned. It is apparent that learned Sub-Judge-II,

considered those grounds as not tenable and therefore, the impugned order was passed. Fair trial is the essence of judicial system in India and

therefore, the aggrieved should be given proper opportunity to raise its grievance before the Court of Law.

Considering all these aspects and also in the interest of justice, I feel inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 by which L.A.

Case No. 04/2005 to 17/2005 have been dismissed with the condition that the appellants shall adduce evidence and place their grievances and

documents before the Court below within three months from the date of this order failing which the Court below shall be at liberty to dispose of the

case on the material available before it and no further time beyond three months, as indicated above, shall be given to the appellants.

With these observations, all these appeals stand allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open Court in presence of the counsel

appearing for both sides.