AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
These appeals coming on for orders are considered for final disposal. Insofar as RFA No. 2029/07 is concerned, it is filed by a party who was not a party before the trial Court. The appellant claims that he has been granted occupancy rights under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, and therefore claims, interest in the suit property and has sought leave of the Court to prosecute the appeal. There is a delay in filing the appeal as well, in respect of which I.A.No.2/10 is filed. Before considering the said application and the appeal, it is pertinent to consider the appeal in RFA.No.1680/07, which is filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (here(sic)after referred to as "BDA" for brevity) who was one of the defendants in the suit. Though the BDA had entered appearance and had filed written statement, it did not prosecute the suit with due diligence. In that, though there was a half-hearted attempt at the cross-examination of P.W.1, no positive evidence was lead on behalf of the BOA nor were the relevant documents produced to establish that the suit property was the subject-matter of acquisition and that the BDA had in turn conveyed title in sites formed thereon to the third parties after possession was taken and sites were formed. In this regard there was total failure on the part of the BDA. It is in this background the applications, I.A.Nos.1/07 and 3/07 are filed for production of additional documents and for stay of the judgment and decree.
It is seen from the body of the judgment that the trial Court has discussed the stand taken by the defendant No.7-BDA insofar as the suit claim is concerned with reference to the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.7-BDA, and has accordingly recorded that there was denial of assertion made in the cross-examination by P.W.1 and by the circumstance that the BDA did not choose to lead positive evidence in support of its contentions and while also taking note of the fact that the lands have been acquired by due process of law has still proceeded to hold that the BDA has failed to establish its case and on the other hand has accepted the case of the plaintiff. This has resulted in the judgment and decree being passed in respect of the land, which is the subject-matter of acquisition, which could not have been challenged in the usual course in the event the BDA had taken pains to produce documents in support of ins case, Therefore, this is a fit case where it is necessary to observe that the trial Court should have proceeded with greater circumspection when a statutory body was before it claiming that the suit land was the subject-matter of acquisition and with reference to gazette notifications and other public documents, which the trial Court was duty bound to examine, even if it was not produced by the BDA, in order in ensure that the claim was not made in respect of public properly. This aspect of the matter having been glossed over by the trial Court has resulted in possible miscarriage of justice relating to public property. Therefore, this is a fit case, which requires reconsideration by the trial Court.
It is to be taken note that the plaintiff has expended much time and energy in prosecuting the case and would be put to inconvenience and hardship, if the case is re-opened. Therefore, the BDA, which was negligent in prosecuting the case is directed to bear the costs that would be imposed to compensate the inconvenience and hardship that would be caused to the plaintiff in having to prosecute the suit ell over again. It is also to be noticed that the State Government has been equally negligent in contesting the suit though it was a party to the suit and was also duty bound to safeguard fee suit property, if indeed it had been acquired for the purpose of BDA through the State Government. Therefore, it is appropriate that the matter in remanded for fresh trial from the stage of tendering evidence for the defendants. The BDA shall be given opportunity to field its witnesses in support of its case and produce such documents, eventhough belatedly, without insistence of compliance with the previsions of the CPC as to the production of those documents, having regard to the circumstances of the case, subject to the BDA paying a sum of Rs,25,000/- as costs to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 1.22012 without further notice.
Accordingly, RFA. No. 1680/07 is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to reconsider the matter in terms as above. The Office is directed to remit the papers in RFA.No.1680/07 to the trial Court.
Since the appellant in RFA.2029/07 is now seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter, the question of appellant being permitted to contest the matter at this stage without any material being placed on record would be futile. However, since this Court has remanded the suit to the trial Court for fresh consideration, it would be appropriate for the appellant in RFA.2029/07 to approach the trial Court with an appropriate application seeking to implead himself and if the Court is satisfied as to his bonafides, the application may be duly considered. RFA. No. 2029/07 stands disposed of with the above observation.