Khudiram Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1019057
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnAug-16-2013
AppellantKhudiram Manjhi
RespondentState of Jharkhand and ors
Excerpt:
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
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