PILLAMMA Vs. ADDL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two sets of cases, viz, MFAs.767174, 79, 131, 188 and 243 of 1975 and CRPs.1442(74 and 475 and 984 of 1975 though arise in different sets of circumstances, but involve a common question of law and hence would admit of determination by a common judgment.

(2.) The short question that falls for determination in these cases is, as to whether the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of Order IX CPC are applicable to reference proceedings before the Civil Court of original jurisdiction launched under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(3.) Before proceeding with the consideration of the legal point aforesaid, it would be desirable, at this stage, tc take note of a few relevant facts which can be stated thus: After references had been made under S.18 of the Act by the Collector and the Court was seized of the matter, at one stage or the other of the said proceedings, the claimants absented themselves which led to the dismissal of the concerned references in default. The claimants applied to the Court under Or.IX R.9 read with S. 151 CPC for the restoration of the respective references and for the setting aside of the order dismissing the same in default. The reference Court rejected those applications on the ground that the provisions of Or.IX R.9 being inapplicable to reference proceedings, the same were consequently not maintainable.