THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SA No.962 of 2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SA No.962 of 2009 Oral Judgment: The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.157 of 2002 on the file of the court of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The 1st plaintiff is the father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The 1st plaintiff purchased the site of an extent of 373 square yards with a thatched house bearing door no.6/96 and covered by Patta no.1234 in block no.14 and S.No.19/2B of Gopalapatnam Panchayat, Visakhapatnam under a registered sale deed dated 25.3.1975 from Sri Pureddi Appa Rao and others and he was in possession of the same. Out of the said extent of land the 1st plaintiff sold away the property of an extent of 0.05 cents to others retaining Ac.0.03 cents with the thatched house therein. It is not in dispute that the Government acquired the said land for laying Railway lane for the benefit of the 4th defendant. The 1st plaintiff nominated the 3rd plaintiff as his nominee to get employment in the 4th defendant-company. It is also seen from the record that the 2nd plaintiff who is another son of the 1st plaintiff has also been issued with R card and he got job in the 4th respondent-Steel Plant. As per the policy of the Government, apart from compensation, the family members of the losers of the land were given R cards for employment facility with the 3rd defendant. The plaintiffs were given such R cards in their individual names and by virtue of power of nomination the 1st plaintiff has nominated the 3rd plaintiff. After making thorough enquiry, the 4th defendant has provided the employment and found the R card as valid. At the time of verification of the bona fides of R card holder, the authorities inspected the properties prior to the appointment. While matters stood thus, the 1st defendant issued proceedings dated 26-10-1993 wherein the R cards of the plaintiffs and some other persons were found to have been obtained by fraudulent method and cancelled them. Contending that the said order is against the principles of natural justice and no opportunity was given and no enquiry was conducted and no verification of the facts has been done, therefore, present suit was filed, inter alia, seeking declaration that the proceedings of the 1st defendant in Rc.No.1140/93 (R2) dated 26.10.1993 are illegal and for a consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the impugned proceedings. The 2nd defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint, which was adopted by the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant also filed written statement adopting the contentions of the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.13, while defendants examined D.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.14. Basing on the pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues. “ 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for ? 2. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata ? 3. To what relief ? ” The lower Court recast the issues at the request of both the parties as follows : “ 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and consequential injunction as prayed for ? 2. Whether the land losers or their agreement holders or nominees of land losers have played any fraud in obtaining R-cards. 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 4. Whether the subject matter is hit by res judicata in view of the orders passed in Writ Petition NO.20764 of 1993 and Writ Appeal No.1270 of 2001 dated 13-8-2001 ? ” On adjudication of the matter, the trial Court allowed the suit in part insofar as the 2nd plaintiff is concerned. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs 1 and 3 have preferred A.S.No.253 of 2008 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court while confirming the judgment of the trial Court inter alia held that the suit is barred by principles of res judicata and that the plaintiffs are entitled for the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act. During the pendency of the appeal, SAMP No.2280 of 2009 has been filed to receive G.O.Rt.No.35 Industries and Commerce Department dated 12.1.2007 and G.O.Rt.No.111 Industries and Commerce Department dated 15.4.1999 to mark the same as Exs.A.17 and A.18. By virtue of the said G.Os.Rt.No.111 it was decided to dispense with the system of Registration for employment in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and in G.O.Rt.No.35, the Government decided to agree with the transfer of Rehabilitation Cards to the son or major unmarried daughter of the old R-Card holder for providing employment in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant by following usual procedure. Coming to the aspect of receiving additional evidence, legal position regarding the production of additional evidence, permitting such additional evidence is very clear. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC did not impose an absolute bar on adducing additional evidence and it can be received under certain circumstances as mentioned in this Rule. The Division Bench of this Court in CHAPALA CHINNABBAYI v. NARALASETTI ANASUYAMMA ((1) 2006(1) ALT 293 (DB)) considering the scope and ambit as to receipt of additional documents relating to subsequent events in Second Appeal held as follows : “ After making a combined reading of Sections 100, 103, Order 4 Rule 27, 28 and Order 42 CPC and in view of the latest legal position, Court is coming to a different conclusion from the conclusion in Anisetting Bhagyavathi’s case ( 1992 (1) ALT 455 (DB ) ) which held that additional evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced in second appeal in view of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. .. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that the High Court may permit a party to adduce additional evidence in Second Appeal under the following circumstances :- (1) Adducing additional evidence is in the interest of justice (2) Evidence relating to the subsequent happenings or events, which are relevant for disposal of the Second Appeal.” In CHAPALA CHINNABBAYI’s case ( 1 supra ), the Division Bench of this Court held that the High Court may interfere with the findings of fact when material or relevant evidence is not considered by the Courts below which, if considered, would have led to an opposite conclusion and when a finding has been arrived at by the appellate Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which, if omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. Though the High Court should not interfere in pure findings of fact reached by the Courts below, without coming to the conclusion that the findings of fact are either perverse or are not based on material on record, it may interfere with the findings of fact also if it finds that those findings are perverse or that they were made on imaginary basis without any material available on record. It was further held that if the High Court considers necessary and appropriate to receive further evidence at the stage of second appeal and in the interest of justice and both parties, it may permit the additional evidence to be adduced by invoking Order 42 CPC and by taking the aid of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Though the parties to the proceedings in a second appeal are not entitled as a matter of right to adduce additional evidence, in exceptional and compelling circumstances, the High Court may take the aid of Order 42 CPC and permit adducing of additional evidence in second appeal in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the appellants also fairly submitted that the appellants were not aware about the issuance of the G.Os. by the Government and in such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the said G.Os. sought to be filed at this stage are relevant for the disposal of the Second Appeal. Since the Government itself issued the G.Os. deciding to dispense with the system of Registration for Employment in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and to transfer of Rehabilitation Cards to the son or major unmarried daughter of the old R Card holders for providing employment in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, the SAMP No.2280 of 2009 is allowed as it is subsequent happening which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of Second Appeal in the interest of justice. It is not disputed before this Court that 1st plaintiff is the age old Rehabilitation Card holder and that the 3rd plaintiff by that time was unmarried son of the 1st plaintiff. It is also borne out from the record that the 1st plaintiff purchased an extent of 373 square yards with a thatched house bearing D.No.6/96 of Gopalapatnam Panchayat under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed dated 25.3.1975. Further, it was stated that at the time of award enquiry, 10 persons in additional to the original owner claimed compensation stating that they have purchased portions of the thatched houses from V.V. Ramana through village ‘puronies’ under unregistered local agreement in the year 1984. Even from the admission made by D.1 to D.3 that the site belonging to the first plaintiff covered under Ex.A.1 was acquired under the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated by A.P. Government for the purpose of setting up the 4th defendant-steel plant. R-Card issued in favour of the first plaintiff was transferred to the 3rd plaintiff as the first plaintiff was working in Co-operative Central Bank Limited by then and therefore 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are working in the 4th respondent steel plant basing on R cards issued as special package to the land losers. It is also borne out from the record that unlike other cases, in this case the 1st plaintiff is the original land owner, and that both the courts below on an erroneous view of the matter have negatived the claim of the appellants on the ground that it is a bogus R card, while granting relief in favour of the 2nd plaintiff who is none other than son of the 1st plaintiff, who is the original land owner. In the light of the evidence adduced, and considering the fact that the 3rd plaintiff is unmarried son of the old 1st plaintiff, who is the original land owner, who was working in Co- operative bank and that at the relevant point of time the scheme was not in force and it was formulated by the Government during the pendency of the Appeal, the Second Appeal is partly allowed holding that the 3rd plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for in the suit. The second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Kk 6-8-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED SA No.962 of 2009 6-8-2010