A RANGA RAO DIED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT PRAKASH NAGAR RAJAHMUNDRY E G DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the provisions of Order 41, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code) are mandatory or directory in nature is the question referred to. The fact of the matter is as follows: Facts:

(2.) The appellants herein filed O.A. No. 141 of 1988 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Kakinada to declare that the National Senior Basic School, Kakinada which is being run by them is a private institution and not a public charitable institution; thus, the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 is not applicable. The said original application was dismissed holding that the school is a public charitable institutions as it is being run by donations from the public whereagainst the petitioners herein preferred an appeal which is marked as Appeal Suit No.163 of 1992 on the file of the District Judge, East Godavari. The said appeal was also dismissed. Hence the present revision petition is filed assiling the order of the lower appellate Court.

(3.) Before adverting to the question posed in this reference, we may notice that the aforementioned question had not specifically been raised in the revision petition nor the same arises in the facts and circumstances of this case. When an application for leading additional evidence inter alia on the ground that the documents were produced in another suit on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry and they had not been able to get them back so as to produce the same before the Deputy Commissioner, was not considered and the matter was decided without such evidence being led, Civil Revision Petition No.1160 of 1995 was filed before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 7-7-1999 directed the lower appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh on merits after considering the application for leading additional evidence on merits. As regards genuineness of the documents it was alleged that they were on the records of the Court in another suit. This Court noticed that the District Judge did not deal with the application finally on the said petition observing that the documents sought to be brought on record do not advance the case of the petitioner and that they are not relevant. It is on that ground alone the District Judge was directed to consider the merit of the matter afresh for leading additional evidence. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction the impugned order has been passed. Before us no order has been placed whereby and whereunder the application for adduction of additional evidence has been allowed nor any material has been placed before us to show as to how the said documents had been taken in evidence.. The learned single Judge in the order under reference merely stated: It appears from the record that on behalf of the appellants in the Court below, i.e., the petitioner in O.A. No.141 of 1988 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, additional evidence in Exs.A1 to A3 5 had been marked. As I can see from the judgment, except making a casual reference, specific points had not been framed and they were not specifically considered by the learned District Judge.