Telangana High Court
I.D.P.L.Employees Co.Operative House ... vs Sada Yellaiah on 8 November, 2024
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
+ Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2484 of 2010 in A.S.No.719 of 2005;
Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2523 of 2010 in A.S.No.723 of 2005
and
Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2482 of 2010 in A.S.No.725 of 2005
%WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OFMARCH,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
# M/s.Durga Matha House Building
Constructions Co.Op. Housing Society
Limited & another.
... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS
VERSUS
$ Sri Sada Yellaiah, S/o.Laxmaiah and others.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri A K Narasimha Rao Sri A Ananda Rao Sri A Ramakrishna ^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Y Ashok Raj Sri V. Venkataramana Sri Harender Prasad Sri S Sri Ram Sri P Subhashan Reddy Sri T V Ramana Rao Sri B Vijaya Bhasker Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi Mr. Kakarla Venkat Rao Sri P Innayya Reddy GIST > HEAD NOTE ?1. AIR 2008 SC 2990
2. AIR 2009 SC 354
3. (2010) 2 SCC 316
4. 2010(11) SCALE 614
5. 2001(4) ALD 144
6. AIR 2005 P&H 263
7. AIR 2003 SC 2095
8. AIR 2003 AP 254 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO Date: Wednesday, the 21st day of March, Two Thousand and Twelve.
Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2484 of 2010
in A.S.No.719 of 2005 Between :
1. M/s.Durga Matha House Building Constructions Co.Op. Housing Society Limited, as TAB No.276, 139 to 143, 1st Floor, Chenoy Trade Centre, Parklane, Secunderabad.
Rep. by its President Sri B. Janardhan S/o. Late B. Chennaiah, R/o.5-9-85, Chappal Road, Hyderabad.
2. Dream View Welfare Association, Plot No.1-A, Dream View, Behind Petrol Bunk, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 72, Rep. by its President M. Purnachandra Rao.
...Petitioners/Appellants AND
1. Sri Sada Yellaiah, S/o.Laxmaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Sri Sada Swamy, S/o.Chinna Ushaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Sri Sada Pedda Narsimha, S/o.Chinna Ushaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Sri Sada Jalandar, S/o.Gouraiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
5. Sri Sada Ashok, S/o.Late Shivraj R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
6. Sri Sada Krishna, S/o.Late Narasimha R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Sri Sada Buchaiah, S/o.Late Maisaiah R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8. Sri Sada Sriramulu, S/o.Chinna Jeetaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
9. Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late V. Sathaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
10. Sri Vadla Mahesh, S/o. Sri V. Sathaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
11. Sri Gunjari Satyanarayana, S/o.Bala Mallaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
12. Sri Gunjari Mallaiah, S/o.late Durgaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
13. Sri Syed Yousuf, S/o.late Jana Mia, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
14. Sri Syed Khaja, S/o.Late Jana Mia, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
15. Sri Nimmala Narahari, S/o.Late Veera Mallaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
16. Sri Nimala Venugopal, S/o.Late Ramakishtaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
17. Sri Vadla Yadaiah, S/o.Late Vadla Pentaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...Respondents/Respondents Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2523 of 2010 in A.S.No.723 of 2005 Between :
IDPL Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., TBC No.230, Vasanthanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, rep. by its President, Sri A. Vijay Kumar, S/o.Late A. Ratnaiah, aged 47 years, President, IDPL Employees Co-op. House Building Society Ltd., TBC No.230, Vasanth Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner/Appellant AND
1. Sri Sada Yellaiah, S/o.Laxmaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Sri Sada Swamy, S/o.Chinna Ushaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Sri Sada Pedda Narsimha, S/o.Chinna Ushaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Sri Sada Jalandar, S/o.Gouraiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
5. Sri Sada Ashok, S/o.Late Shivraj R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
6. Sri Sada Krishna, S/o.Late Narasimha R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Sri Sada Buchaiah, S/o.Late Maisaiah R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8. Sri Sada Sriramulu, S/o.Chinna Jeetaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
9. Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late V. Sathaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
10. Sri Vadla Mahesh, S/o. Sri V. Sathaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
11. Sri Gunjari Satyanarayana, S/o.Bala Mallaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
12. Sri Gunjari Mallaiah, S/o.late Durgaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
13. Sri Syed Yousuf, S/o.late Jana Mia, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
14. Sri Syed Khaja, S/o.Late Jana Mia, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
15. Sri Nimmala Narahari, S/o.Late Veera Mallaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
16. Sri Nimala Venugopal, S/o.Late Ramakishtaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
17. Sri Vadla Yadaiah, S/o.Late Vadla Pentaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...Respondents/Respondents Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2482 of 2010 in A.S.No.725 of 2005 Between :
M/s. Durga Matha House Building Constructions Co-operative House Society Ltd., repd. By its President B. Janardhan, S/o.Late B. Chennaiah, Aged about 65 years, residing at 5-9-85, Chapal Road, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner/Appellant AND
1. Sri Sada Yellaiah, S/o.Laxmaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Sri Sada Swamy, S/o.Chinna Ushaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Sri Sada Pedda Narsimha, S/o.Chinna Ushaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Sri Sada Jalander, S/o.Gouraiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
5. Sri Sada Ashok, S/o.Late Shivraj R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
6. Sri Sada Krishna, S/o.Late Narasimha R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Sri Sada Buchaiah, S/o.Late Maisaiah R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8. Sri Sada Sriramulu, S/o.Chinna Jeetaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
9. Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late V. Sathaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
10. Sri Vadla Mahesh, S/o. Sri V. Sathaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
11. Sri Gunjari Satyanarayana, S/o.Bala Mallaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
12. Sri Gunjari Mallaiah, S/o.late Durgaiah, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
13. Sri Syed Yousuf, S/o.late Jana Mia, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
14. Sri Syed Khaja, S/o.Late Jana Mia, R/o.Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
15. Sri Nimmala Narahari, S/o.Late Veera Mallaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
16. Sri Nimala Venugopal, S/o.Late Ramakishtaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
17. Sri Vadla Yadaiah, S/o.Late Vadla Pentaiah, R/o.Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...Respondents/Respondents The Court made the following ::
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2484 of 2010 in A.S.No.719 of 2005 Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2523 of 2010 in A.S.No.723 of 2005 And Rev. A.S.M.P.No.2482 of 2010 in A.S.No.725 of 2005 Dated: 21-03-2012 Common order : (per JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) These are applications seeking review of the common judgment dated 16-07-2010 passed in A.S.Nos.719; 723 and 725 of 2005 whereby the appeals were dismissed confirming the judgments and decrees in O.S.Nos.109 of 2002; 178 of 2003 and 179 of 2003 on the file of the learned V-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The trial Court dismissed the three suits filed by the petitioners seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties claiming possession of the schedule properties on the date of institution of the respective suits.
In A.S.No.723 of 2005, the petitioners herein who are the appellants filed five applications - (1) A.S.M.P.No.2543 of 2007 for reception of specified documents appended to the application as additional evidence in the appeal; (2) A.S.M.P.No.1583 of 2008 seeking amendment of the suit schedule property in (the substantive suit) O.S.No.179 of 2003; (3) A.S.M.P.No.1584 of 2008 for amendment of the Plaint in O.S.No.179 of 2003; (4) A.S.M.P.No. 1585 of 2008 for amendment of the cause title in the appeal; (5) A.S.M.P.No.1701 of 2008 for impleading respondent Nos. 18 to 27, as respondents in the appeal; and (6) A.S.M.P.No.1768 of 2008 to receive two more additional documents as additional evidence in the appeal.
In A.S.No.725 of 2005, the appellants filed A.S.M.P.No.374 of 2006 along with the appeal for reception of five additional documents specified therein, as additional evidence; and A.S.M.P.No.2666 of 2008 to receive the three documents specified therein as additional evidence.
It is the admitted and demonstrable factual scenario that the common judgment in the three(3) appeals was pronounced and delivered on 16-07-2010 without disposing of the eight (8) applications mentioned above. It is asserted by the petitioners herein that non-consideration of these applications constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record requiring review of the common judgment. Review of the common judgment is sought on other grounds as well, in these applications for review.
Sri D.V.Seetharam Murthy, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri A.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants in A.S.No.723 of 2005, Sri A. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.725 of 2005 and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri A.K.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel in A.S.No.719 of 2005 contend that non- consideration of the applications by this Court while adjudicating and passing the common judgment in the appeals, is an error apparent on the face of record.
Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel instructed by Sri P.Subhashan Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents in the respective applications for review contends that notwithstanding non-consideration of the applications including for reception of additional evidence, the common judgment is not liable to be reviewed. It is contended that though non- consideration of the applications, in particular the applications filed for reception of additional evidence may amount to an error apparent on the face of record, every apparent error does not legitimize review unless the error has also occasioned miscarriage of justice. Precedents are cited by the learned counsel appearing both sides for the respective points of view.
Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enacts the contours for production of additional evidence in the appellate court. The provision enjoins that parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, oral or documentary, unless the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred had refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted; the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that despite due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, despite due diligence be produced at the time when the decree appealed against was passed; the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment; or for any other substantial cause. Where additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the appellate court must record reasons for its admission.
In the case on hand ASMP Nos. 2543/07 and 1768/08 in AS No. 723/05 and ASMP Nos. 374/06 and 2666/08 in AS No. 725/05 were filed by the petitioners herein/appellants, for production of additional evidence. The three appeals were disposed of (dismissed) by a common judgment without reference to these applications. Other applications - ASMP Nos. 2469/05 (for interim injunction); 1583, 1584, 1585 and 1701 of 2008 in AS No. 723/05; ASMP No. 2464/05 in AS No. 719/05 (for interim injunction)l and ASMP No. 2470/05 (also for interim injunction) in AS No. 725/05 were not disposed of. Apart from the three applications for interim injunction pending the appeals, the other applications were for other reliefs adverted to earlier. These applications ought to have been considered while disposing of the appeal, but were neither adverted to or adjudicated, presumably since pendency of these applications were not brought to the notice of the court. Be that as it may. Non-consideration and determination of the several miscellaneous applications clearly amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. [1]
In Hakam Singh and Anr. vs State of Haryana and Ors ( ); [2] Jatinder Singh and Anr. vs Mehar Singh and Ors ( ); Shyam Gopal [3] Bindal and Ors vs Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. ( ); Malayalam [4] Plantations Ltd vs State of Kerala and Anr. ( ); V.Devender Reddy and [5] Ors vs T. Devanarayana Reddy ( ), the Supreme Court and this court have taken the view that when an application for production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 is filed it is the duty of the appellate court to deal with the same on merits; and non-consideration of such application vitiates the appellate judgment. In such circumstances the Supreme Court has consistently set aside the judgment of the court below and remitted the matter for fresh decision on merits along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence. The Punjab & [6] Haryana High Court in Ashok Kumar vs Surinder Kumar ( ) has ruled that where an appellant filed an application for production of an additional evidence, dismissal of the appeal without deciding the application would result in miscarriage of justice and the judgment passed in that case would be unsustainable.
Mr. VLNGK Murthy while conceding the normative principle that non-consideration of an application for production of additional evidence by an appellate court while proceeding with judgment constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, urges that though the common judgment dated 16.7.2010 is vitiated by such apparent error, no interference in review is called for. Reliance is place on certain observation of the Supreme Court in Rejendra [7] Kumar and Ors vs Rambhai and Ors ( ) and in a decision of a learned Division Bench of this court in Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs [8] Cultor Food Science Inc. and Ors ( ).
I n Rejendra Kumar (6 supra) the civil appeal before the Supreme Court was against an order of a Division Bench of this court allowing a review petition filed by an Insurance Company seeking review of the judgment whereby the compensation amount was enhanced in a motor accident claim case. The insurance company sought review on the ground that it was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing, before the judgment of the Division Bench enhancing the compensation was passed. Mr. Murthy the learned counsel, lays considerable emphasis on the following observations of the Supreme Court in this judgment:
"5. On perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that the High Court without considering the question whether the judgment/order sought to be reviewed suffered from any error, entered upon the exercise of re-appreciating the evidence and on such re-appreciation of evidence re-determined the compensation by reducing the amount to the extent noted earlier. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed."
It requires to be noticed that these observations are made in the factual context of that case which is set out in Para-6 of the judgment:
"6. Coming to the merits of the case, suffice it to say that on perusal of the order, which has been reviewed by the order under challenge did not suffer from any serious illegality, which called for correction by exercise of review jurisdiction. It is relevant to note here that the deceased was holding the post of Supervisor in Women and Child Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka at the time of her death and she was aged about 48 years at that time. The salary drawn by the deceased, as evident from the salary certificate produced as additional evidenced was Rs.2,570/-p.m. The multiplier, which had been accepted by the Division Bench in the previous order, was 10. In the circumstances of the case, multiplier of 10 was rightly taken. Thus on merit also no interference with the order was called for."
From the aforesaid judgment no principle of law of generic application could be culled out that in every case where review of a judgment is sought on the ground that relevant material was not considered and that an error apparent on the face of the record had occurred, no review is justified without the court further examining as to whether despite consideration of such material there would have been no change in the eventual conclusion recorded in the judgment.
Learned counsel Mr. Murthy referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Nicholas Piramal (8 supra). In this case an application for review of the common order dt 12.12.2001 passed in a C.M.A. and a C.R.P., was rejected. Inter alia the review petitioner had contended that CMP No. 21689/01 (filed for reception of certain documents as additional evidence) was not considered and this resulted in grave injustice to the 1st respondent (the review petitioner). The application for review was contested by the appellant on the ground that all the pleas now raised were considered in the common order; that review may be exercised only for correction of an error but not to substitute a decision already taken, since review cannot be an appeal in disguise. This court declined review in view of the fact that the documents sought to be introduced as additional evidence were the written statement filed by the appellant in the suit; the rejoinder filed by the 1st respondent (the review petitioner) in the suit; and an application filed by the said respondent to receive the rejoinder and a copy of the plaint in OS No. 2/01 filed by the Principal of the 1st respondent against the appellant. This court observed that the written statement and the rejoinder (if received) would be a 'pleading' within the meaning of Order VI CPC and since they form part of the record, need not be marked and could be taken into consideration even without being marked. On this factual substrata this court observed that non-marking of the written statement filed by the appellant; the application to receive rejoinder and the rejoinder filed by the 1st respondent (review petitioner) in the trial court, cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the 1st respondent/review petitioner. The court also considered the fact that the copy of the plaint in OS No.4/01, filed by the Principal of the 1st respondent for a declaration that the agreement (on the basis of which the appellant invoked arbitration) and other allied agreements are null and void, has no relevance to decide IA No.1352/2000, since the petition for injunction filed by the 1st petitioner could not be decided on the basis of pleadings in another suit. Non-consideration of these documents did not cause prejudice to the review petitioner and therefore non passing of an order in CMP No. 21689/01 at the time of disposal of the appeal is not a justifiable ground for seeking review, held this court.
In our respectful view the above judgment does not postulate a principle of law of general application that where a review of judgment is sought on the ground for instance that relevant material was not considered including an application for production of additional evidence, the appropriate procedure is to consider the vitality of such application and analysis of the additional evidence, anterior to considering whether review of the judgment is warranted.
In our considered view the present applications for review of the common judgment have two facets: One facet targets the judgment for invalidation on the ground that miscellaneous applications including applications for production of additional evidence were neither adverted to nor considered. The second and subliminal facet of the applications for review is that the determination/conclusion in the common judgment is erroneous on merits and a contrary conclusion is legitimate if the additional evidence sought to be produced is considered. It is the second facet of the review application which requires consideration and analyses of the merits of the several miscellaneous applications.
For the nonce we are only concerned with the first facet of the review applications viz., whether the common judgment dt. 16.7.2000 could be sustained despite the failure to advert to and determine the several miscellaneous applications seeking production of additional evidence; and other reliefs.
Whether any or all of these applications have merit and ought to be allowed; and if allowed would have any material bearing on the outcome of the appeals is not an aspect that is pragmatic to consider at this stage of the proceedings. However occasioned, even if be on account of error of the counsel for the respective parties in bringing to the notice of this court the pendency of miscellaneous applications, the fact remains that non- consideration of the miscellaneous applications has vitiated the common judgment and such error is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is axiomatic that the error of the court should prejudice no party. Actus curiae neminen gravabit is the maxim and we find no exceptional circumstances for avoiding this principle.
In the present applications for review (of the common judgment in the three appeals) the complaint is as to the non- consideration of several applications pending during the currency of the appeals. The applications include those for consideration of several documents as additional evidence in two of the appeals; for amendment of the plaint in the substantive suit, for amendment of the cause title and for impleading some respondents, in another appeal. Learned Counsel Mr. Murthy contends that the applications for production of additional documents cannot be considered for a variety of reasons. Some of the documents including the final decree in CS No. 14 of 1958 are inadmissible as evidence on account of under valuation of stamp duty; and other documents do not fall within the contours of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. It is also contended that even if potential additional evidence were considered, the finding (in the common) that the plaintiffs/appellants were in possession of the schedule property would not be effected. It is further contended that in a suit for bare injunction substantial adjudication of title to the schedule property is neither warranted nor legitimate.
It is not within the province of this court in these applications (seeking review of the judgment in the appeals) to consider whether the several applications filed by the appellant including for production of additional evidence on merits merit acceptance; and whether if the applications are allowed and the additional evidence taken on record and considered the same would have any material bearing on the outcome of the appeals. This is not the stage to go into the merits of the several applications. That consideration is appropriate when the miscellaneous applications are taken up for consideration and adjudication on merits along with the substantive appeals.
In the facts and circumstances of the case the several documents presented for consideration as the additional evidence and the other applications seeking several other reliefs - for amendment of the plaint, for amendment of the cause title in the appeal and for impleading certain persons as respondents in an appeal, requires to be considered independently. This is a substantive adjudicatory exercise in itself. It is not pragmatic nor conducive to expeditious and efficient adjudication to consider the merits of each of the miscellaneous applications prior to considering whether the common judgment must be set aside on the singular ground that several pending miscellaneous applications including those for production of additional evidence were neither adverted to nor determined in passing the judgment.
On the aforesaid analysis the present applications for review of the common judgment dt. 16.7.2000 in AS Nos. 719, 723 & 725 of 2005 (i.e., A.S.M.P.Nos.2484, 2523 and 2482 of 2010 in A.S.Nos.719, 723 and 725 of 2005, respectively) are allowed. The common Judgment dated 16-07-2010 is set aside. The appeals shall be taken up for final adjudication along with AS MP Nos. 2543/07, 1583/08, 1584/08, 1585/08, 1701/08 and 1768/08 in AS No. 723/05; and ASMP Nos. 374/06 and 2666/08 in A.S.No. 725/05. No costs however.
Date: 21-03-2012 _________________ Justice G.Raghuram _________________ Justice R.Kantha Rao Pvks/ndr LR COPY TO BE MARKED: YES [1] AIR 2008 SC 2990 [2] AIR 2009 SC 354 [3] (2010) 2 SCC 316 [4] 2010(11) SCALE 614 [5] 2001(4) ALD 144 [6] AIR 2005 P&H 263 [7] AIR 2003 SC 2095 [8] AIR 2003 AP 254