B B SINGH Vs. BALBHADDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu, J. This revision is directed against the order of the S. D. M. Malihabad Lucknow, dated 6-8-1993 deciding proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. finally in favour of the opposite parties.

(2.) SRI B. M. Sahai, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant and SRI Rakesh SRIvastava on behalf of the opposite parties have been heard at length and the entire record has been perused. The principal argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that during the discussion of the evidence produced by the parties the S. D. M. concerned has referred to an order of the Naib-Tehsildar, dated 27-1-1992 but refrained from taking note of his own order, dated 26-7-1993 whereby he had himself upset the order, dated 27-1-1992. The argument proceeds that while the Naib Tehsildar had held the title pased on to the opposite parties, the S. D. M. (the same gentleman who as S. D. O. has decided mutation proceedings and later the case under Section 145 I. P. C.) has not taken note of a subsequent setting aside of that very order by him. Nothing could be brought out or shown by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties to challenge the correctness of this argument. Under the circumstances it stands proved beyond doubt that the S. D. M. 's order is vitiated because he had relied upon an order of the Naib-Telsildar which was no more in existence.