VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 2 -2 -1983 passed by Sri. L.R. Kohli, learned District Judge, Kheri, dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioners under Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) filed against the order dated 8 -9 -1982 passed by Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) Kheri. It appears that the appeal was called out for hearing on 2 -2 -1983. A person responded and went to call the Counsel. After 40 minutes the appeal was again taken up at 1.10 P.M. and at that time none responded. Learned District Judge by a cryptic and non -speaking order dismissed the appeal by holding that. "I have gone through the record and feel that the appeal is liable to be dismissed." He has not mentioned what are the facts of the case or on which point the matter was agitated in appeal. I am also constrained to observe that when a Pairokar appeared at the time when the appeal was called out for hearing and he had taken time to call his Counsel, atleast some indulgence should have been shown by the learned District Judge and he should have waited for some time more for the appearance of the Counsel. Learned District Judge appears to be in hurry in disposing of the said appeal as he took it up at 1.10 P.M. only 20 minutes before rising for lunch recess. It cannot be said nor it can be believed that this was the only case listed before the learned District Judge on the day's Cause List and it is equally difficult to assume that at 1.10 P.M., when the learned District Judge had taken up this appeal for hearing second time, it was the only case left undisposed of before rising for the lunch recess and the Court was not to resume sitting after lunch. The disposal of this appeal in the manner it has been done by a non -speaking order, must have hardly consumed a very little time of the Court and such an order, although it cannot be legally justified, could be passed in post -lunch period before rising for the day. It could thus enable Counsel for the Appellants to reach Court and argue the appeal on merits. There are numerous authorities, which are cited at the Bar, repeatedly reminding the desirability of taking up such case at the fag end of the day's proceedings. This salutary practice is required to be followed to serve the ends of justice, which enjoins upon Court not to indulge in hasty disposal of cases ex parte or by default. The learned District Judge could very well have taken up this appeal for hearing in post -lunch period so as to enable the Counsel to appear and argue the appeal.

(2.) LEARNED District Judge also illegally proceeded to decide the appeal on merits in the absence of the Appellants or their Pairokar. When the appeal was called out for hearing second time, it appears that none responded as is evident from the impugned order itself. Therefore, when none had appeared at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned District Judge should have proceeded to dismiss the appeal in default as is provided under Order 41 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure. He was not empowered to dismiss the appeal on merits in view of the Explanation appended to Order 41 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure. This provision applies to the hearing of appeals under Ceiling Act in view of Section 38 of the Ceiling Act. The impugned order passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the appeal on merits by one sentence non -speaking order is per se illegal and without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.

(3.) I , however, make no order as to costs.