SUJIT MITRA Vs. LILA MONDAL (MITRA)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Lila Mondal (Mitra)
Click here to view full judgement.
VIDYA NAND, J. -
(1.)THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th December, 1994 passed by Shri K. Chowdhury the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan in Criminal Motion No. 175 of 1993, Sujit Mitra v. Smt. Lila Mondal dismissing the revisional application for non -prosecution on the failure of the petitioner to appear and take a step to show cause why he did not take any step on 9th November, 1994 in the said Criminal Motion.
(2.)IN a case for maintenance instituted by Smt. Lila Mitra Opposite party which commenced on 31st August, 1988 two witnesses were examined on 10th December, 1988 it was adjourned at the instance of the opposite party on 21st January, 1989, P.W. 3 was examined on 26th August, 1989 it was adjourned as a last chance to 25th November, 1989 and as none appeared on that day the evidence was closed. On 22nd January, 1990 when recording of the evidence of defence witnesses was being taken an application was filed which was rejected. On that day the opposite party on filing a petition, took an adjournment and moved a Criminal Revision Case being Case No. 28 of 1990. This said revisional application was disposed of and the opposite party was directed to be given further chance to adduce evidence. The opposite party again took several adjournments and ultimately the evidence of the opposite party was closed on 28.8.1991. Thereafter the petitioner Sujit Mitra adduced evidence and D.W. 2 was examined on 17.4.1993. 21.8.1993 was fixed for further evidence. Due to disturbance his witnesses could not reach in court in time on that day and the Trial court therefore, closed the evidence of the petitioner at 12 -30 p.m. on the very day. Within 5 to 10 minutes of the said order Netai Das and Noor Khan appeared in court and so the petitioner filed an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for examining the witnesses who appeared in Court for the just decision of the case and accordingly the Trial Court, fixed 17.4.93 for examination of witnesses as the advocate for the Opposite Party had already left the Court. By order dated 21.9.93 the learned Trial Court imposed a condition that on the next date only the said two witnesses would be examined and thereafter argument of the parties would be heard.
(3.)THE petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders moved the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan in his revisional jurisdiction being Criminal Motion No. 175 of 1993 which was admitted on 12.10.1993 for hearing and the records were directed to be called for and steps to be taken for service of notice. The petitioner filed the requisites but the process server returned the same unserved upon which the petitioner was directed to put in fresh requisites which were put in again on 18.02.94 and again it was returned unserved and the petitioner was once again directed to take steps on 21.5.94. The Sessions Judge directed the petitioner again to put in requisites for service by registered post and accordingly requisites were put in again. The petitioner was again informed that the notice was returned unserved. Again the Learned Sessions Judge on 22.6.94 directed for taking necessary steps, on the application of the petitioner he was again directed to take a step. On 9.11.94 as no step was taken on behalf of the petitioner he was directed to show -cause by 12.12.94. As no steps could be taken because of communication gap between the petitioner and his Learned Advocate the revisional application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Judge for non -prosecution.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on all occasions the petitioner put in requisites as directed by the learned Sessions Judge but because of communication gap with the Learned Advocate he failed to take a step on two occasions but even then his revisional application was dismissed when being heard on merits. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner has again come in revision before this court invoking inherent powers of the court as gross injustice occasioned.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.