SHAHIDA BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON issues arise in these appeals. The appellants were claimants before the respective reference courts. It is seen that the reference courts in these cases disposed of the references without answering the reference on merits on the ground that the appellants who are respondents before the reference court did not adduce any evidence. Thereafter attempts were made for reopening the judgments under Order 9, Rule 9/order 9, Rule 13, read with Section 151 of the CPC. Those applications were also dismissed. Hence the appeals.

(2.) THE questions which arise for consideration are:

(3.) AS to whether the reference court is hound to answer the reference on merits, the issue is no more res integra. In Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala 1998 (2) KLT 898, Thomas, J. as His Lordship then was, has held that "even if no evidence is adduced, the court has to pass an order either maintaining the amount specified in the award passed by the learned Acquisition Officer, or enhancing it on account of some valid reasons Absence of the person interested in the land will not divest the court of its jurisdiction to pass the award envisaged in S. 28 of the Act. If the court dismisses a reference for default, it tantamounts to refusal to answer the reference which is not warranted by the provisions of the Act When there is a reference to the civil court, such reference has to be answered irrespective of the presence or absence of the person interested. "