TAHSILDAR Vs. YELLAPPA TIPPANNA VADAWADAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the Tahsildar, Basavanabagewadi, Bijapur District, against the order dated 22-2 1984 passed by the Munsiff, Basavanabagewadi. in O.S. No. 105 of 1982 issuing proclamation and arrest warrant against the Tahsildar who was summoned as a witness to produce the document.

(2.) The case was posted on 22-2-1984 for the appearance of the witness who bad been summoned to produce the documents. As can be seen from the order sheet, the witness Tahsildar had taken many adjournments to search for the documents and produce the same. Even on 22-2-1984 the A.G.P. submitted in the Munsiff Court that the witness was searching for the documents and still they wore not available. The Lower Court thought that no representation had been made either by the witness personally or by any other persons. At that stage, the defendant's Counsel Sri M.I.P. appears to have filed an application under Order 16 Rule 10 C.P.G. requesting the Court to issue proclamation and arrest warrant against the Tahsildar. He heard the parties and perused the order sheet and the affidavit filed by the defendant. The Lower Court after perusing the order sheet and the affidavit filed by the defendant and in view of the Petition and the memo filed by the witness Tahsildar on 23 1-1984 and 2-1-1984 and finding that the witness was absent, ordered the issue of proclamation and the arrest warrant.

(3.) Looking to the things that have happened in the Court below, it appears that the Tahsildar was wrong in not appearing in the Court and in not submitting that the documents though searched were not available The majesty of the law and the dignity of the Court require that the witness however highly placed he may be, should appear in the Court in order to maintain the decorum of the Court and submit that the documents which had been summoned. were searched and they were not available. It is this conduct of the witness Tahsildar that appears to have pricked the conscience of the Court.