GURUSIDDAMMA Vs. HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned advocates for both the contesting parties as also the learned government Advocate on merits.

(2.) THE short point involved in this appeal and one which is of some consequence particularly in the litigation relating to the land reforms, where the cases have been shuttling between the tribunal and the high court with continuous regularity without being disposed off at either of the two ends, is whether the grounds on which the remands are ordered would require some level of scrutiny. The present case is a classic instance where on the previous occasion the high court granted a remand on the application of the claimant who had contended that he desires to lead additional evidence. Without going into the question as to why the evidence was not lead earlier and what was the nature of the evidence, the high court accepted the submission of the learned counsel and remanded the case. It is quite significant for us to note that despite this solitary ground having been highlighted before the high court, when the proceedings went back to the tribunal that the petitioner did not lead any additional evidence, oral or documentary, and only written arguments were filed and a fresh order was passed which was once again challenged before the high court and, once again the same plea was taken up this time, with the added variation that despite the remand on the ground that additional evidence was to be led by the parties who desire to produce it for the purposes of making out their case that the tribunal was in error in not having ensured this. In the circumstances of the present proceedings where the petitioner had asked for remand on the ground that additional evidence was to be led and was allowed to lead that evidence and if the petitioner then chose not to do so, there is absolutely no ground or justification on which the tribunal can be blamed for this. It is very clear to us that this was a hollow plea in order to dilate the litigation.

(3.) ON the present occasion once again a remand has been secured on the ground that the petitioner desires to lead additional evidence and the argument advanced is that despite the remand the tribunal had not recorded the additional evidence, the implication being that as pointed out by us earlier, it is the tribunal that is at fault. On this ground the learned single judge has straightaway remanded the proceedings. It is this order that is challenged before us. We would like to reiterate that normally, if in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned single judge holds that a remand is absolutely essential, that an appeal court would not, under normal circumstances question the validity of that order or interfere with it. We need, however to prefix this observation with a clarification that where the proceedings have virtually been mechanically disposed off and the opposite party who is at the receiving end has come up before the appeal court a situation arises to re-examine the justification of the remand and that too in an old litigation. The justification for a remand must be abundantly spelt out and supported by cogent grounds and material and must be virtually unavoidable. In other words, it must be the exception and not the rule.