IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 6,7,8 & 270 of 2003 CMP Nos. 58, 56, 60 of 2003 In RFA Nos.6,7, 8 of 2003 Date of Decision: 22nd December, 2010 __________________________________________________________ RFA No. 6 of 2003 Jai Parkash Hydro Power Ltd & another. ….Appellants. Versus Amar Singh ….Respondent. RFA No. 7 of 2003 Jai Parkash Hydro Power Ltd & another. ….Appellants. Versus Kamal Singh ….Respondent. RFA No. 8 of 2003 Jai Parkash Hydro Power Ltd & another. ….Appellants. Versus Nand Lal ….Respondent. RFA No. 270 of 2003 Jai Parkash Hydro Power Ltd & another. ….Appellants. Versus Indira Devi and others ….Respondents. __________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ RFA No. 6,7 & 8 of 2003 For the Appellants: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala and Mrs. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocates. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2 RFA No. 270 of 2003 For the Appellant: Mr Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The common point involved in these appeals is regarding the entitlement of the respondent-plaintiffs to the compensation claimed for purported damage to their trees, land etc. A number of issues were settled on which the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff(s) for various sums of money which according to the learned Court was established on record of the case. 2. Arguments were heard in detail. At the time when the appeals were taken up, my attention was drawn to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was filed by the appellants herein in this Court to urge that so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the method adopted by the learned trial Court was incorrect. What the appellants urged is that evaluation criteria of fruit trees in Himachal Pradsh has been revised by the Horticulture Department and approved by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Horticulture vide letter No. HTC-G(9) dated 18th July, 2001. Since the suits out of which present appeals arise were instituted after that date, the contention of the respondents-defendants is that the criteria 3 namely the Harbans Singh formula adopted by the trial Court, could not have been adopted for assessing the damage. The compensation, if any, payable by the appellants-defendants would be in accordance with the new Rules formulated, which were applicable on the date of institution of the suit. In these circumstances, a prayer was made to lead additional evidence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have also addressed arguments on the respective merits of the case including the fact of non-maintainability of the suits as instituted by the respondents-defendants. I am not pronouncing on the merits of the respective contentions of the parties. That will be for the trial Court to adjudicate after an opportunity has been granted to the appellants herein to lead additional evidence on the criteria for evaluation of fruit trees etc. Needless to say that it will be open to the plaintiffs also to lead such evidence in rebuttal with respect to this fact only, as they may choose to do. For this purpose, the learned trial Court shall grant an opportunity to the appellants herein to lead evidence with respect to the evaluation criteria and ample opportunity to the plaintiffs to rebut that contention. In these circumstances CMP Nos.56 of 2003 in RFA No. 6 of 2003, 58 of 2003 in RFA No. 7 of 2003, 60 of 2003 in RFA 8 of 2003, are allowed and RFA Nos. 6, 7, 8 and RFA 270 of 2003 are disposed of accordingly. It is clarified that over and above this evidence, the parties shall not be allowed to lead any other evidence.The suits shall thereafter be re-heard and decided on the evidence on record. 4. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Rampur on 8th March, 2011. Taking into 4 consideration that the cases pertain to the year 2002,a direction is issued that the learned trial Court shall disposed of all suits not later than six months from the date when the parties first put in appearance before the Court. All appeals disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge December 22nd , 2010(ms)