Judgment:
1. In this appeal the appellants are claimants who seek to challenge the orders in SR 3344 in IA No. ... of 2000 in LAOP 8 of 1993 dated 28-9-2000, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur dismissing the application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as (CPC) for restoration of LAOP 8 of 1993 which was disposed of on 4-7-2000.
2. Heard Ms. T. Haritha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
3. The admitted facts of the case are that the main OP arose out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value in respect of the lands acquired and on such reference, during the proceedings, on 4-7-2000 when the matter came up the petitioners were not present and ultimately it was rejected without going through the merits. Therefore the present application is filed by the petitioners to set aside the said order on the ground that the secondpetitioner was away at Delhi and the first petitioner had been to Hyderabad to take treatment as he was suffering from diabetes and they were not informed by their Counsel about same and further contending that even though the petitioners remained absent, the matter was disposed of on merits. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that Order 9, Rule 9 of CPC is not applicable.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that when the petitioners filed an application to participate in the proceedings, the Court below should have provide an opportunity to the petitioners. Instead, the Court below has rejected the application on the ground the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9 of the CPC are not applicable by placing reliance on certain decisions referred to therein. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits That in view of the principles laid by the Supreme Court in Rajmani v. Collector, Raipur, : (1996)5SCC701 , wherein it was held that though an appeal would lie under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against an order or dismissal, alternative remedy under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 is available, the Court below should have restored the matter to file and disposed of the same on merits.
5. In view of the above decision, the very reason adopted by the Court below is not correct. Further, accepting the reasons as mentioned in the affidavit, as to the petitioners being away at Delhi and Hyderabad, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should not be given an opportunity for prosecuting the case on merits. More so, the procedural laws are made to meet the ends of justice rather than using the same as any punishment or even to trip the people.
6. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the Court below is directed todecide the matter and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides.