IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5230 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8814 of 2006)

Prem Chand and Others      ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Board of Revenue U.P. and Others           ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the

Revenue  Officer  (Original  Authority),  Additional  Commissioner,  Meerut  (First

Appellate  Authority)  and  Board  of  Revenue,  Uttar  Pradesh  (Second  Appellate

Authority) and remanded the matter to the Original Authority with the direction to

frame an additional issue as to whether the compromise decree was passed in the suit

under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and its effect.  While doing so, the High

Court directed that the Original Authority shall decide the case on the basis of the

material  existing  on  record  and  no  party  shall  be  allowed  to  lead  any  further

evidence.

In our opinion, when the High Court directed the Original Authority to

frame an additional issue and decide the matter afresh, there was no justification to

direct that the case be decided on the basis of existing material and no party shall

allowed to lead further evidence.  This direction is wholly unwarranted.

....2/-

- 2 -

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part, impugned order is modified to

this  extent  that,  after  framing  issue,  as  directed  by  the  High  Court,  the  Original

Authority shall give opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. As  the

matter  has  become  very  old,  we  reiterate  the  direction  of  the  High  Court  that

proceeding  shall  be  disposed  of  within  a  period  of  six  months  from  the  date  of

receipt/production of copy of order of High Court and this order.    

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, August 25, 2008.