JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, C.J.
1. Admitted. Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on November 9, 2000, in First Appeal No. 236 of 1989. The said appeal was filed by the claimant-land owner. Proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimant. A reference was made which was decided by the District Judge, Raigarh. Dissatisfied with the Award made by the learned District Judge, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 106 of 1986, the claimants had approached this Court.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal holding that the matter required reconsideration by the Reference Court. He, therefore, set aside the Award made by the District Court and remanded the matter. While passing the order, however, the learned Single Judge observed:
“It is made clear that the parties shall not be entitled to lead any further evidence of any nature whatsoever and the Reference Court shall decide the reference as per the available evidence on record.”
4. Being aggrieved by the above part of the order and observations, the claimant has approached this Court.
5. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned Assistant Government Pleader stated at the Bar that in pursuance of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the Reference Court has already decided the matter on April, 11, 2001 resulting in letters patent appeal being infrustuous and academic.
6. In our opinion, however, the learned Counsel for the appellant is right in contending that if the present appeal will be disposed of holding it to be infructuous, serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the appellant in view of the fact that the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the direction to the Reference Court not to permit the parties to lead additional evidence and to decide the reference on the basis of available evidence on record, would become final. It was submitted that though the Reference Court has decided the matter, if this Court ultimately holds that in the circumstances, no such direction could have been issued by the learned Single Judge, preventing the parties from leading additional evidence, it would be possible for the claimant to raise the point in the first appeal which he has filed against the Award.
7. We see substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the relevant provisions of law will have to be kept in mind while deciding an appeal. It is, therefore, necessary as well as incumbent on the Appellate Court to consider section 96 and Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If the Appellate Court is satisfied that additional evidence should be permitted or is otherwise necessary in exercise of discretion in accordance with law, it may allow the parties to adduce such evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, no direction could have been issued by the learned Single Judge not to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. Since the direction is not in consonance with law, it deserves to be set-aside. It is, however, for the Appellate Court to apply its mind and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant also made a grievance that, after the remand, the reference was disposed by the District Judge on the ground that the reference was not instituted within the period prescribed by law and was barred by limitation. The Counsel submitted that as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge impugned in the present letters patent appeal, the Reference Court had to decide the matter on merits. The direction issued by this Court, therefore, had not been carried out, submitted the Counsel. The District Court, according to the learned Counsel, could not have rejected the reference on the ground of limitation.
9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, however, relying on para 4 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, submitted that the reference was to be decided “afresh in accordance with law”. The said expression would include an objection as to limitation also.
10. In our opinion, it would be appropriate, if we allow the learned Counsel for the parties to raise all contentions as may be permissible before the learned Single Judge in the appeal. As and when such contentions will be raised, they will be dealt with and decided in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.