DEWAKAR Vs. R P PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mr. Dewakar, arguing his matter in person, seeks review of the order of this Court in Contempt Application No. 323 of 1990, Dewakar v. R. P. Pandey, Vlllth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. THE order of this Court is dated 18th April, 1990.

(2.) NOTWITHSTANDING whether a review application against a final order deciding a contempt application is maintainable or not, yet this Court is considering the review application and deciding it on merits.

(3.) REQUIRING the court below to proceed with the trial day-to-day and determine it within 30 working days, is a time schedule which no Court can keep in to-day's context. This aspect already finds noticed in the final order of this Court dated 18th April, I9y0. This Court had already declared that with strikes which close the courts, the courts alone cannot be held responsible to keep to a time schedule which otherwise the public accepts from a public justice system and only a normalcy of a situation can demand strictness from a court adhering to take up proceedings on the day so fixed. The court had already made an observation that the order sheet which had been placed by the petitioner along with the contempt petition revealed that proceedings in the district courts at Muzaffarnagar were collapsing on various dates because lawyers struck work. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the learned Additional District Judge had committed any contempt because he could not adhere to the strictness on a direction of mandamus by the High Court to determine the trial within four months.