Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Section: 54,18

Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Section: 54,18

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XVII,R.3,2,O.IX,r.8,O.XVIr.12

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------O. XVII, Rr.2 & 3 & O.IX---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss.18 & 54---Striking off right for production of evidence---Appeal against---Trial Court to which reference petition under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was forwarded, struck off right of appellants for production of evidence---Proceedings in the case were fixed for recording of evidence of Patwari Halqa who was summoned at the instance of appellants, who had deposited his diet money---Patwari Halqa who appeared in the court, was examined in a piecemeal manner for a sufficient amount of time, but on one date when he did not appear, notice under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. was given to the appellants, though the case was fixed for recording the statement of Patwari Halqa---Validity---Trial Court was under legal duty to procure the attendance of Patwari as appellants had deposited his diet money as Patwari was official witness and required to be summoned by the court---Case was adjourned for recording of evidence and on the date so fixed for the evidence of Patwari and the oral evidence of the appellants, neither the appellants attended the court nor evidence was produced---Court, in such eventuality, could proceed under Rule 2 of O.XVII, C.P.C., instead of resorting to provision of R.3 of O.XVII, C.P.C.---Trial Court had incorrectly applied provisions of R.3 of O.XVII, C.P.C. because statement of Patwari was yet to be completed---No material was available on record to dismiss the suit as said provisions were not mandatory, but were permissible and discretionary in nature---Said provisions being penal, must be strictly construed and to be sparingly applied to the cases; and that too where all the requirements prescribed under the law had been fulfilled---Trial Court, in absence of the appellants, at the most, could dismiss the suit under O.IX, C.P.C. or pass any other order as it deemed fit---Since the precious rights were involved in the case, which required adjudication on merits, appellants could not be deprived of their rights on the mistaken legal advice and for the act of the court---Appeal was accepted on payment of cost and impugned order was set…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492