Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 970 (JHR)

Kadan Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-08-16

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2013
Order : 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 6. 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. 7. With these observations, all these appeals stand allowed. 8. This order has been pronounced in the open Court in presence of the counsel appearing for both sides.