Prem Chand & Ors vs Board Of Revenue Up & Ors
- SCC(2008) 10 SCC 533
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When a court directs that a matter be remanded to an Original Authority to decide questions afresh, a direction that the decision be rendered only on material already on record, with no further evidence permitted from any party, is unwarranted and must be struck down; the remanding court's order shall be read to permit the Original Authority to afford the parties the opportunity to lead further evidence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5230 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8814 of 2006)
Prem Chand and Others ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. and Others ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer (Original Authority), Additional Commissioner, Meerut (First Appellate Authority) and Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh (Second Appellate Authority) and remanded the matter to the Original Authority with the direction to frame an additional issue as to whether the compromise decree was passed in the suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and its effect. While doing so, the High Court directed that the Original Authority shall decide the case on the basis of the material existing on record and no party shall be allowed to lead any further evidence.
In our opinion, when the High Court directed the Original Authority to frame an additional issue and decide the matter afresh, there was no justification to direct that the case be decided on the basis of existing material and no party shall allowed to lead further evidence. This direction is wholly unwarranted.
....2/-
-2- Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part, impugned order is modified to this extent that, after framing issue, as directed by the High Court, the Original Authority shall give opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. As the matter has become very old, we reiterate the direction of the High Court that proceeding shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of order of High Court and this order.
......................J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J. [G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, August 25, 2008.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free