RAJAMMA Vs. CHOKLA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A remiss on the part of the counsel who remained absent before the Appellate Authority who is respondent-3 herein drove the petitioner to this Court to seek necessary relief against the damage caused to her interest.

(2.) On the day when the case was set down for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner before the Appellate Authority did not attend the hearing and consequently the case of the petitioner went almost abegging. The Appellate Authority proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits mainly relying on the contentions of the respondent. In these circumstances, even the limited relief sought by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was lost sight of and therefore, the only point for consideration is, as to what relief could be granted to the petitioner on the facts and in the circumstances of the case by this Court.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that what the petitioner needs is the liberty to remove the standing crops from the land in question and also for assessment and evaluation in terms of money of the substantial improvements stated to have been effected by the petitioner on the land in question. I think that the ends of justice would be frustrated if the reliefs sought by the petitioner are not granted, particularly in view of the fact that the Appellate Authority has not been able to bestow its attention on the reliefs sought by the petitioner before it and passed an order without giving findings on the same.