KADAN MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 25.02.2009, passed in respect of L.A. Case No. 04/2005 to 17/2005 by learned Sub Judge-II, Seraikella Kharsawan. The impugned order indicates that the appellants had failed to adduce evidence even after availing sufficient opportunities and therefore, the aforesaid L.A., Cases, preferred by the appellants stood dismissed and the awards granted in their favour were confirmed.

(2.) It is submitted that only on account of non-production of witnesses, the impugned order was passed which is highly erroneous, illegal and liable to be set aside. The other aspects which the appellants had raised before the Court below have not been addressed. Learned Court below has wrongly recorded that the appellants had received the award amount without any objection. The documents filed by them were clearly indicating that they had received the amount with protest. It is desirable for the ends of justice that the appellants may be given limited opportunity at least to adduce their evidences and place the documents and grievances before the learned Sub-Judge which happens to be a trial Court and the order should not have been passed sitting as appellate Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State has raised objection and argued that learned Sub-Judge-II has rightly passed the impugned order when no evidence was adduced and the appellants had failed to substantiate their grievances before learned Sub-Judge-II. As a matter of fact, the award was received by them without objection and the reference was beyond period of limitation. Therefore, no reference could have been made.