NARAYAN PADHAN Vs. DHARANIDHAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Sahu appearing on behalf of the complainant -appellant, however, contended before me that a local inspection having already been directed by the predecessor of the learned trying Magistrate, he is incompetent and has no jurisdiction to revise the order of his predecessor and he was bound under the law to make the local inspection whether the parties pressed for it or not. It would appear from the order -sheet D/ - 15.2.1960 that the complainant filed an application for a local inspection and ultimately by an order dated 29.2.1960 Sri M. M. Mohanty, the then learned trying Magistrate, directed local inspection to be held on 20.3.1960, and it was also further ordered that the arguments would be taken upon 23 -3 -60 after the local inspection is made.

(2.) FROM the order -sheet dated 23 -3 -60 passed by Sri M.M. Mohanty, it appears that the lawyers of both parties did not accompany him on 20 -3 -60 for local inspection. So he refixed the date for local inspection to 10.4.1960 as they were not agreeable to go earlier. He fixed argument to 12.4.1960. From the order sheet dated 12.4.1960 it appears that the local inspection was agreed to be made by lawyers of both parties on 24.4.1960 and 26.4.1960 was fixed for argument. From the order -sheet dated 26.4.1960 it appears that the next date was fixed for 15.5.1960 for argument after local inquiry. In the meanwhile before 13.5.1960 the case was withdrawn from the file of Sri M. M. Mohanty and was transferred to the file of Sri H. H. Misra, Magistrate 2nd Class. The said learned Magistrate on 13.5.1960 passed an order to the effect that local inspection was not pressed and the case was posted to 26.5.1960 for argument. On 26.5.1960 the order -sheet shows as follows:

(3.) THE learned Magistrate's explanation is that so far as the local inspection is concerned, it was not pressed. As is well known, if the parties do not press for local inspection then eventually it may not be necessary for the Court to make a local inspection. No doubt the Court can suo motu take a move to make local inspection for the better appreciation of evidence but if the parties are not serious about it and do not very much press for the local inspection to be made, the Court probably has no other way than to abandon it. In this case it appears, the complainant wanted a local inspection and the Court did not of its own accord want a local inspection for proper appreciation of the evidence.