KAILASH CHANDRA MAHAPATRA Vs. JYOTINDRA NATH MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) IN this application under Section 115, C.P.C. petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court against the order passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 3), Bhubaneswar, on 27.7.2002. That order reads as hereunder : "Adv. for the petitioner files hazira. Adv. Sri S. N. Das files memo of appearance of OP No. 2. Advocate Sri P. Patnaik and his Associate Adv. For O. P. No. 1 Call for the connected paper and put up on 22.8.2002 awaiting documents". It appears form the original record that the underlined portion was written by the Bench Clerk after scoring through the word 'L.C.R. In the later order on 5.9.2002 learned Addl. District Judge has clarified about that situation by stating that it was not necessary for him to call for the entire L.C.R. but to peruse the relevant documents basing upon which the original Court disposed of the application under Order, 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. The aforesaid observation of the learned Addl. District Judge sails along with the provision of law. In fact, it was not necessary for the Addl. District Judge to ask for the entire L.C.R. when the relevant documents form the L.C.R. could have been sufficient to dispose of the Civil Revision pending before him Learned Addl. District Judge as well has noted in that order that the petitioner has cast aspersion on the Court for not calling for the L.C.R. and calling for certain documents. This Court expected the petitioner to come to sense at this stage even and to propose for an apology to learned Addl. Ad hoc District Judge in open Court. Petitioner does not volunteer in that respect. Therefore, it will be appropriate for learned Addl. Ad hoc District Judge (F.T.C. No. 3), Bhubaneswar to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions in Contempt of Courts Act. Copy of this order by communicated to learned Addl. District Judge. It appears from the order dated 5.9.2002 that the Civil Revision has already been disposed of as per the separate judgment by dismissing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at least the civil revision be directed to be heard afresh by learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge. In view of Amendment of Section 115 C.P.C. by Act 46 of 1999, the order, which was impugned in the Court below, was not revisable. Therefore, this Court does not feel necessity of issuing such a direction. The Civil Revision is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.