OM PRAKASH PANDEY Vs. THE STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 19.4.1992 passed by Sri S.L. Adharsh the then Session Judge Ballia passed in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 1992 setting a side the order passed the S.D.M. Ballia and directing to dispose of the application for appointment of the receiver and then to proceed with the case for final hearing. From the order passed by the learned Session Judge it appears that the S.D.M. had disposed of the entire case under Sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code though it was fixed only for disposal of the application of the receiver. it also appears that the S.D.M. had not given opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence and he has decided the case considering the affidavit filed by the parties. Heard learned counsel Sri C.P. Srivastava for the revisionist and Sri P.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 13 and Sri Manfol Singh learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not support the order passed by the S.D.M. Ballia. The learned Sessions Judge had rightly quashed the order as the learned S.D.M. has decided the case on the basis of affidavit and no opportunity was given to the parties to adduce oral evidence. Moreover the case was not fixed for hearing but for the disposal of the application for appointment of the receiver. No infirmity or illegality could be pointed out in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that during the pendency of this revision the village in which the plot in question is existing was taken under the consolidation operation and on the basis of entry in the basic year a chak was carved out in favour of the revisionist. In the said chak the part of the plot in question, besides two more plots which belong to others were included. he contended that as the valuation has been determined and the original plot has lost its entity on account of carving of new chak, the proceeding under Sec. 145 Criminal procedure Code has become in fructuous. Learned Counsel for the opposite party contested this assertion firstly on the ground that no document has been made part of record and the C.H. form was filed along with an application which has been disposed of and secondly the revisional court cannot consider the matters which were not taken in the grounds of revision. I find force in this contention. The learned Sessions Judge while quashing the order had directed the S.D.M. to decide the proceedings under Sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code in accordance with law. The plea which has been sought to be raised in this revision may be raised before the S.D.M. who will consider it in accordance with law and pass appropriate order. I do not want to express any opinion so as to embarrass the learned Magistrate in disposing of the case. The revision is dismissed. Let the record be sent within a month. Revision Dismissed.