SHEO PRASAD Vs. BHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are : Bhaiya Ram and others move a motion under Rule 115-P Z. A. Rules in the Court of Collector, Fatehpur. The pleading is that lease of Abadi site in favour of Sheo Prasad is highly irregular. An objection by allottees. On 20-5-1992 lease of allottees numbered 1 to 7 is cancelled. Aggrieved by the order a revision by Sheo Prasad. On 1-9-1994 Additional Commissioner's reference to set aside the order of trial Court and to remit the cause for re-disposal on merits according to law.

(2.) Heard the Counsel for the parties; the record has been perused.

(3.) Additional Collector has decided the cause-right or wrong in the light of his perception of things. The burden is presently Commissioners to perfect, to improve, to alter when necessary but at all cost and always to go forward. The settled principle is that when trial Court fails and falters the obligation of revisional Judge is to do much better. Additional Commissioner prefers a few reasons for remit of the cause. He says Allotment Register should have been summoned. The same is no part of the record. The burden is allottees to take relevant extracts therefrom and, then, place in the judicial fils in proof of validation. This is clear from 1965 RD 105. The second ground is that Court should have given chance to parties to lead oral evidence, instead of them filing affidavits. Well, if the parties themselves do not lead evidence what despairing Collector can do. If affidavits go down as inadmissible the party filing has to suffer consequences of his indiscretion. The Court is not to do to enable parties what type of evidence and in what manner they are to tender in Court. The inadmissible material be excluded under Sec. 167 Evidence Act. The Commissioner to remember that when evidence on record is sufficient the burden is finally to decide on merits. This is the plain imperative of Order 41 Rule 24 C. P. C.