Telangana High Court
M/S. D.M.H.B.C.C.H.S. Ltd., vs Sada Yellaiah And 16 Others 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.
in
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
in
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
in
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.
In Hakam Singh and Anr. vs State of Haryana and Ors ( );
Jatinder Singh and Anr. vs Mehar Singh and Ors ( ); Shyam Gopal
Bindal and Ors vs Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. ( ); Malayalam
Plantations Ltd vs State of Kerala and Anr. ( ); V.Devender Reddy and
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 &
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
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
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
AIR 2008 SC 2990
AIR 2009 SC 354
(2010) 2 SCC 316
2010(11) SCALE 614
2001(4) ALD 144
AIR 2005 P&H 263
AIR 2003 SC 2095
AIR 2003 AP 254
