M N MUDDIAH SETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 12-8-1988; of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chick ballapur dated 12-8-88 by which the application made by the appellant before the said Appellate Authority came to be rejected. That application was for leading additional evidence. Appellate Authority constituted under Section 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act exercises its power against any order passed by the Land Tribunal. Its procedure is governed by statutory rules made and known as the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules, 1986. Under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the said Rules it is provided that the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary before the Appellate Authority unless the Tribunal from whose order the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which sought to have been submitted ; or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due deligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of the due deligence be produced by him at the time when the order appealed against was passed or when the Appellate Authority requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgement or for any other substantial cause ; or the Appellate Authority considers it necessary so to do for the ends of justice. In other words, by employing the language in the negative that the party shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence the Legislative intent is clear that the provision should be construed strictly and one of the several requirements enumerated must be satisfied before additional evidence is permitted to be led by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The appellant examined three witnesses as well as himself before the Land Tribunal and closed his case. Nowhere in the grounds of appeal he urged that opportunity given to him was inadequate. The stand was taken only in the application filed for leading additional evidence. Even if such stand was taken, the question is whether by liberally conconstruing the provisions made in the Rule 9 it should be laid down that Appellate Authority should in every case where an application is made for leading additional evidence by either of the parties in the appeal it shall permit such additional evidence in the proceeding before it.

(3.) My attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of Gangamma v. Kundalapady Venkappa (I.L.R. Karnataka 1988 page 1480), In the said decision, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: "There is no difficulty in applying the first two sub clauses of Rule 9(4). Even Rule 9(4) (iii) also may not be difficult of application and interpretation. There is scope for some interpretation in respect of sub-clause (iv), to say, as to when the Appellate Authority shall consider it necessary to admit additional evidence in the ends of justice. It is here the Appellate Authority will have to approach the problem afresh without unduly restricting the exercise of its power by drawing any guidance from similar phraseology found in the Code of Civil Procedure or elsewhere. The concept of justice, especially in the matter of procedure, will vary depending upon the circumstances. A litigant, who had the benefit of engaging an Advocate to participate in a trial if a suit in a Civil Court and the circumstances under which a Civil suit is litigated cannot be compared to a proceeding before the Land Tribunal, as already observed by me above. For the first time the litigants are allowed to engage a Counsel before the Appellate Authority. The scope of the procedure has been vastly altered by the amendment to the Act as also by the Rules. When the litigants get fresh advice as to how the cause will have to be established, there is no reason why the Appellate Authority should deny a party opportunity to lead additional evidence, so that justice, according to the particular litigant, can be attained, especially in respect of the cases which are tried by the Land Tribunal, before the Advocates were permitted to represent the parties before the Land Tribunals (by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court recently). I consider that sub-clause (iv) of Clause (4) of Rule 9 will have to be broadly and liberally construed to enable a party to adduce further or additional evidence, unless the conduct of the party is so perverse that permitting of such additional evidence will be just to procrastinate the proceedings." From the above it is clear that if at all the Appellate Authority has to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant to produce additional evidence, it may do so only under Clause (4) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the aforementioned Rules and not otherwise. In other words it is for the party to demonstrate before the Appellate Authority that injustice has resulted by some conduct of the parties or by the order of the Tribunal which creates the need for additional evidence. Otherwise, however, liberally construed the provision does not give room for adducing additional evidence as and when the applicant desires to produce.