B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) - This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated December 6, 1989, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur.
(2.) THE Station House Officer, Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur on March 4,1989, filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional District Magist-rate (City), Jodhpur, under Section 145 Cr. PC. THE learned Executive Magist-rate drew a preliminary order and issued notices to Party No. 1 Ajay Singh and Party No. 2 Bhanwar Singh. Ajay Singh produced his evidence, but the party No. 2 Bhanwar Singh did not produce any evidence and the learned Executive Magistrate after trial by his order dated December 6, 1989, consider-ing the evidence produced by Ajay Singh and after looking to the record, came to the conclusion that Party. No. 1 Ajay Singh was in the possession of the plot in question. THE learned Magistrate, therefore, declared the possession of party No. 1 Ajay Singh over the plot in question on March 4, 1989. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the non-petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the preliminary order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, and engaged Shri Ramsukh Sharma, Advocate, to conduct his case. Shri Ram Sukh Sharma, Advocate informed him that as the revision petition has already been filed so now the petitioner is not required to attend the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (City) Jodhpur, where the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC are pending. The peti-tioner, therefore, though, attended each and every date of hearing in the revi-stion petition pending before the learned Sessions Judge as per the advice of his counsel but he did not appear before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, and therefore, the proceedings against him proceeded ex- parte and the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur, passed the order dated December 6,1989. It is, therefore, prayed that on the wrong advice of his counsel, the petitioner could not produce any evidence and could not contest the case pending before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodh-pur. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners on the other hand, has suppor-ted the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodh-pur, and contended that if the parly No. 2 did not like to produce any evidence before the learned Additional District Magistrate then the Additional District Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated Decem-ber 6, 1989, declaring the possession of the non - petitioner on the basis of the evidence available on record. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. It is no doubt, true that the petitioner has filed a revision petition challenging the preliminary order passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Magistrate and that revision petition is still pending. But it is also, equally true that the petitioner, after engaging Shri Ramsukh Sharma, Advocate, as his counsel, did not appear even on a single day before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City ). Jodhpur and did not produce any evidence. No affidavit of Shri Ramsukh Sharma, Advocate, has been filed by the petitioner to show that he gave such advice to the petitioner. In the absence of the affidavit of Shri Ramsukh Sharma Advocate, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not attend the proceedings pending before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur on the advice of Shri Ramsukh Sharma. The reasons given by the petitioner in the petition for his non-appearance before the learned Magistrate does not inspire confidence. When the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show his possession then the learned Magistrate in passing the order dated December6, 1989 declaring the possession of the party No. 1 Ajaysingh over the plot in question, on the basis of the evidence produced by him, has not committed any illegality,
(3.) IN the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed. .;