AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present Civil Revision Application has been filed u/s 115 of the CPC with following prayers on the grounds set out in detail in the application:
(A) To call for the records and proceedings of Takrari Case No. 3/2006 from the Court of the Hon''ble Mamlatdar, Kheralu and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 28.8.2008 and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Prant Officer, Visnagar in Revision Application No. 6/2008.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 28.8.2008 passed by the learned Mamlatdar, Kheralu in Takrari Case No. 3/2006.
Learned Counsel, Mr. R.J. Goswami for the applicants has referred to the orders passed including the order, which is produced at Page No. 8 in Mamlatdar Court Act Case No. 6/2008, which refers to the manner in which the proceedings have been taken. The said order refers to the fact that 23 adjournments were given and still the applicants did not remain present and, hence, the order came to be passed. There is another order passed in Takrari Case No. 3/2006 by the Mamlatdar, Kheralu, wherein there is a reference about the merits. However, at the same time, it is specifically stated that as the opponents-applicants herein or their lawyer did not remain present, the right to cross-examine the witnesses was closed and the order came to be passed.
Learned Counsel, Mr. Gosami has also referred to the Rojkam produced on record at Page No. 40 and submitted that from this Rojkam, it cannot be said that the applicants were totally negligent or failed to remain present.
Learned Counsel, Mr. Goswami, therefore, submitted that at-least in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded back subject to any condition. He also makes a statement that they will cooperate and proceed with the matter without fail.
In view of the submissions and having perused the papers, as it transpires that it cannot be said that the opportunity was not given to the present applicants. However, at the same time, it is evident that the right of cross-examination was closed and order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicants though it was given to the applicants but they did not avail. Therefore, without going into further details, the interest of justice would be served if the matter is remanded back to the same authority for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law on merits after hearing the parties concerned and after giving opportunity of cross-examining and hearing. Therefore, the present Revision Application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. The order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the Mamlatdar, Kheralu in Takrari Case No. 3 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Mamlatdar, Kheralu, who shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order after providing the opportunity of cross-examining and hearing to the present applicants.
It goes without saying that the applicants herein shall not ask for any adjournment and shall proceed with the matter without fail.
The applicants shall deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards the cost before the Registry.
Direct service is permitted.