MANILAL SHIVRAM PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.N.Shah, taking this Court through the entire evidence on record especially the rojkam of the case, has argued that the third party vide reply dated 17-1-2009 remained present before the learned Addl. Executive Magistrate but since the opponent was not present, matter was adjourned. However, on 21-1-2009, when the learned advocate of the opponent remained present, case was kept for orders and thereafter on 13-2-2009, the impugned order came to be passed.

(3.) It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the newly added respondent No.7, Mr.Harnish Darji, that the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Executive Magistrate is legal and proper. As the present petitioner failed to remain present on the date fixed for hearing before the learned Addl. Executive Magistrate, the learned Magistrate he had no option but to decide the matter on merits considering the papers available on record and hence, there is no question of deciding the matter afresh and hence, the revision is required to be dismissed.