ARAKHITA SETHI Vs. GANGADHAR MISRA AND ORS.
LAWS(ORI)-1973-8-30
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on August 01,1973

Arakhita Sethi Appellant
VERSUS
Gangadhar Misra And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.K. Misra, J. - (1.) SECOND party member is the Petitioner. This case has got a chequered career. It once came up in revision to this Court and was heard by Justice A. Misra. There were ten cases of similar nature. All of them were dealt with in a single judgment. The learned Judge remanded the case with a direction that the learned Magistrate will deal with all the ten cases separately and write separate judgments with reference to the materials of each record. Accordingly after remand, on examining the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the first party members are in possession of the disputed lands on the date of the preliminary order.
(2.) AS there are ten cases and various documents, I called upon the Advocate for the Petitioner to thoroughly go into the documentary evidence and the affidavits and give a chart making necessary comments as to how the documents help one party or the other. Despite the case being adjourned as part -heard, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has filed a note with reference to the documents filed by the Petitioner and without making any reference to the documents filed by the opposite parties. The decision of the criminal Court under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is ultimately subject to the result of a civil suit or decision of any other competent authority. Where parties have alternative remedies, it is the usual practice of this Court not to admit such cases and encourage litigation. The same is the position in a revision against an order under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure where the party has got alternative remedy of filing a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Code of Civil Procedure. Despite the practice of not admitting such revision petitions both on the criminal and civil sides, certain cases are examined where there is clear contravention of mandatory provisions of law.
(3.) THERE is no violation of any legal provision in this case. The learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion by assessment of evidence. I find no justification for interference with such an order by assessing evidence as an Appellate Court, particularly when the Petitioner has an alternative remedy.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.