SMT PADMANI DEVASAN Vs. MAJOR S DEVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition Under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that my order dated 17.8.1964, whereby I rejected a reference made to this Court by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly, be set aside.

(2.) The facts are that on receipt of the reference from the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it was submitted to me for orders in Chambers on 3.8.1964, and I passed my order rejecting the reference on 17.8.1964. The office report discloses that the record had been received by the office of this Court on 3.7.1964, and a memo of appearance was filed by Sri B.C. Saxena, Advocate, on behalf of the opposite party Major S. Devasan on 27.7. 1964. Since appearance by Sri Saxena had not been filed within two weeks of the receipt of the reference it was submitted to me for orders in Chambers in accordance with Clause (2) of Rule 20 of Chapter XVIII of Rales of this Court which runs as follows:

(3.) Sri Gopal Behari has urged that since I had not passed any orders until 4.8.1964, on which date he filed his appearance on behalf of the applicant, the orders on the reference should not have been passed by me in Chambers. This contention appears to be wholly devoid of force. There is no controversy that appearance on behalf of the applicant had not been put in by Sri Gopal Behari within two weeks of the receipt of the reference by this Court. Learned Counsel has, however, relied on the provision that "where appearance is put in on behalf of any party before the case is so laid before a Judge it shall be listed in Court for orders", and has urged that even if appearance is put in after the expiry of two weeks the case should thereafter be listed for orders in Court. I express no opinion on the question whether the case must be listed in Court for orders even though a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the reference had already expired before appearance had been put in on behalf of a party, but it is perfectly clear that there is no question of listing any reference in Court for orders by reason of appearance having been put in on behalf of a party after the reference has been submitted to a Judge in Chambers for orders. It is, therefore, clear that the putting in of appearance by Sri Gopal Behari on behalf of the applicant after the reference had been submitted to mi in Chambers for orders could be of no avail.