ARJUN Vs. ARJUNSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against an appellate order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 2 -11 -1954 in case relating to parcha chakbandi.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. These have been material irregularities in the exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate courts and hence the proceedings conducted by them stand completely vitiated. An application was presented on 9 -2 -1954 before the Assistant Settlement Officer on behalf of all the kashtkaran and zamindaran of Damakabas objecting to the grant of parcha chakbandi of the land in dispute in favour of Shyam Singh and Adisal Singh. At first efforts were made to have the dispute settled through an arbitration but they failed. Thereafter Ganpat Singh, Arjun Singh, Raghunath Singh and Narain Singh were examined jointly in one recorded statement, and thereafter the evidence of the applicants was recorded. It is also apparent from the record that the applicants presented an application before the Settlement Commissioner on 10 -5 -1954 praying for transfer of the case from the Court of the A.S.O. concerned. The application was sent to the A.S.O for report who wrote down put up with the file on 18 -5 -1954, in his own hand. Without submitting the required report he proceeded to determine the case on 4 -6 -1954 and the decision was against the applicants. In the first place the provisions of O.1, r. 8, C.P.C. corresponding to Rule 7 of the Rules framed under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, should have been complied with by the trial court. Numerous persons were claiming interest in the case and permission to carry on the proceeding should have been granted to some of them in accordance with these provisions. This was not done. Secondly the manner in which the statements of Gopal Singh, Arjun Singh etc. were recorded makes them legally in -admissible. All these for persons appear to have been examined simultaneously and only one record of that statement was made upon which the signatures of all the four persons were obtained. This procedure is not warranted by any provisions of law. The statements of witnesses must be recorded one -after other and it so only when the examination -in -chief, cross -examination, and re -examination, if any, of a witness is over that the second witness is to be brought in the Witness box. A joint statement reduces the test of cross -examination to a farce and strikes at the very root of the law of evidence. Hastily it was highly improper for the A.S.O., concerned to flout the orders of his superior court which demanded a report from him. He ought to have realised the significance of the transfer application and should not have proceeded to dispose of the case unless the transfer application was decided one way or the other. This factor, if alone, would not have justified a reversal of the findings if they were otherwise maintainable but coming or it does with the other illegalities pointed out above the cumulative effect is that the entire proceedings conducted by the trial court stand vitiated. There has been no proper enquiry or trial in the case and a remand is, therefore, inevitable. We would therefore, allow this revision, set aside the orders of the lower courts and remand the case to the court of the first instance with the direction that it be tried and determined afresh in the light of the observations made above.