Judgment:
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI F.A.No.67of2009 with F.A.Nos.68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79&80of2009 KadanManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.67of2009) UdgaManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.68of2009) BudheshwarManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.69of2009) NagenManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.70of2009) TuluManjhi&Anr. Appellants(inF.A.No.71of2009) PatalManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.72of2009) KunaramManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.73of2009) ShyamManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.74of2009) KhudiramManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.75of2009) ShamalManjhian Appellant(inF.A.No.76of2009) SukuManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.77of2009) MohanManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.78of2009) GopalManjhi Appellant(inF.A.No.79of2009) TotiManjhian .......Appellant(inF.A.No.80of2009) Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Others Respondents CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.UPADHYAY FortheAppellants :M/sH.K.Mahto&AhalyaMahto,Advocates FortheState :Mr.ShamimAkhtar,S.C.(Mines) 11/16.08.2013 Alltheseappealshavebeenpreferredagainstthecommonorderdated 25.02.2009,passedinrespectofL.A.CaseNo.04/2005to17/2005bylearned SubJudgeII,SeraikellaKharsawan.
2. Theimpugnedorderindicatesthattheappellantshadfailedtoadduce evidenceevenafteravailingsufficientopportunitiesandtherefore,theaforesaid L.A.Cases,preferredbytheappellantsstooddismissedandtheawardsgranted intheirfavourwereconfirmed.
3. Itissubmittedthatonlyonaccountofnonproductionofwitnesses,the impugnedorderwaspassedwhichishighlyerroneous,illegalandliabletobe setaside.TheotheraspectswhichtheappellantshadraisedbeforetheCourt belowhavenotbeenaddressed.Learnedcourtbelowhaswronglyrecordedthat the appellants had received the award amount without any objection. The documents filed by them were clearly indicating that they had received the amountwithprotest.Itisdesirablefortheendsofjusticethattheappellants maybegivenlimitedopportunityatleasttoadducetheirevidencesandplace thedocumentsandgrievancesbeforethelearnedSubJudgewhichhappensto beatrialcourtandtheordershouldnothavebeenpassedsittingasappellate court.
2. 4. LearnedcounselappearingfortheStatehasraisedobjectionandargued that learned SubJudgeII has rightly passed the impugned order when no evidence was adduced and the appellants had failed to substantiate their grievances before learnedSubJudgeII. As a matterof fact,the awardwas receivedbythem withoutobjection and the reference was beyondperiod of limitation.Therefore,noreferencecouldhavebeenmade.
5. Bethatasitmay,intheinterestofjusticetheappellantsshouldhave beengivenopportunitytosubstantiatetheirgrievancesraised. Itistruethat fewadjournmentsweregiventothemwhichtheycouldnotavailduetothe reasonstheyhadassigned.ItisapparentthatlearnedSubJudgeII,considered thosegroundsasnottenableandtherefore,theimpugnedorderwaspassed. FairtrialistheessenceofjudicialsysteminIndiaandtherefore,theaggrieved shouldbegivenproperopportunitytoraiseitsgrievancebeforetheCourtof Law.
6. Considering all these aspects and alsoin the interest of justice, I feel inclinedtosetasidetheimpugnedorderdated25.02.2009bywhichL.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 beforetheCourtbelowwithinthreemonthsfromthedateofthisorderfailing whichtheCourtbelowshallbeatlibertytodisposeofthecaseonthematerial availablebeforeitandnofurthertimebeyondthreemonths,asindicatedabove, shallbegiventotheappellants.
7. Withtheseobservations,alltheseappealsstandallowed.
8. ThisorderhasbeenpronouncedintheopenCourtinpresenceofthe counselappearingforbothsides. (D.N.Upadhyay,J.) NKC