9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the resumption order dated 13.9.91. 2. Possession of the plaintiff over the plot in question. 3. Locus-standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. 4. Bar of limitation on the suit. 5. Estoppel from filing the suit by the plaintiff's own act and conduct. 6. Non-joinder of necessary parties. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Resumption Order The trial court found that the resumption order dated 13th September 1991 was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the high tension line and electric pole were removed only on 30th November 1995, making it impossible for the respondent to comply with Clause 8 of the agreement. The appellant did not provide an opportunity for the respondent to be heard, nor was a show cause notice served. Consequently, the resumption order was set aside. Issue 2: Possession of the Plaintiff The trial court concluded that the respondent was in possession of the suit plot, as the resumption order was not served upon the respondent. The appellate court affirmed this finding, noting that no cogent evidence was produced by the appellant to show that the respondent had prior knowledge of the resumption order. Issue 3: Locus-Standi of the Plaintiff The trial court found that the respondent had the locus-standi to file the suit, as the respondent was in possession of the plot and had complied with the terms of the agreement to the extent possible given the circumstances. Issue 4: Bar of Limitation The trial court held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The appellate court supported this finding, stating that the resumption order was not served on the respondent, and thus the limitation period did not commence. Issue 5: Estoppel from Filing the Suit The trial court found no merit in the appellant's argument that the respondent was estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct. The appellate court agreed, noting that the respondent had made several attempts to have the high tension wires removed. Issue 6: Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties The trial court found that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The appellate court affirmed this finding. Additional Evidence: The High Court rejected the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The court held that the legal notice dated 8th October 1991 was not admissible as additional evidence, as it was not proved that the notice was issued by the respondent. The High Court also noted that the appellant had ample opportunity to produce this evidence during the trial and first appeal but failed to do so. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, affirming that the resumption order was illegal and the suit was not barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
