RANJEET SINGH Vs. RAM SAHAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This Revision has been directed against the orders dated 19. 2. 1991 and 28. 7. 1990 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate Banda in case No. 4/xi rejecting the applicants' petition for recalling the ex pane order dated 28. 7. 1990, whereby the evidence of the applicants under section 137 (2) Cr. P. C. was held to be insufficient.

(2.) THE allegation was that the applicants blocked public passage by constructing one gate. Local inspection was done to assess merits of the allegation. THE applicants denied existence of the public right and the learned Magistrate proceeded in examining the witnesses under Section 137 Cr. P. C. THE grievance is that the learned Magistrate did not complete the said proceeding and by an order dated 28. 7. 1990 it was stopped abruptly with the finding that SAKSHYA PURN NAHI HAI and fixed next date for taking evidence of the opposite parties. An application was filed by the applicants on 16. 1. 1991 for recalling the said order. THE learned Magistrate by an order dated 19. 2. 1991 rejected the said application and hence this Revision.

(3.) THE instant revision was filed on 15. 3. 1991. So it is apparent from the office record that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28. 7. 1990 is barred by limita tion. From the order dated 19. 2. 1991 it appears that the petition to recall the order was filed by the applicants on 16. 1. 1991 i. e. after about six months of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It has been stated by the learned Magistrate while considering the petition of the applicants for recalling the order dated 28. 7. 1990 that after passing that order the applicants participated in the proceeding and 15 adjournments were obtained in connection with taking of the evidence of the opposite parties (Revisionists and during that period one witness was examined by the opposite parties and cross-examined by the applicants (O. P before me) and cross-examination of the second witness was pending when the said petition was filed. So it appears that there was considerable delay in filing the application for recalling the order dated 28. 7. 1990.