CHANDRASEKHAR SAMANTASINGHAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate and this Civil Revision is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

(2.) JUDGMENT dated 16.3.2002 in Misc. Appeal No.6/93 of 2002/92 of the Court of Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Puri is under challenge. Learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge has allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. filed by the Opposite party and in that process set aside the order dated 26.8.1992 Passed by the Subjudge, Puri in Misc.Case No.105 of 1990 (under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C.).

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, referring to the orders passed by both the Courts below argues that learned Subordinate Judge, Puri unreasonably and unduly took a narrow view while considering the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., but learned Adhoc Additional District Judge duly appreciated the evidence on record and has taken the appropriate view. He further argues that the view taken by the appellate Court is neither illegal nor unjust and the revisional Court should not interfere with the same. He, however, volunteers that opposite party has no objection to enhancement of the cost if this Court feels that the cost awarded by the appellate Court is inadequate.