LAWS(ORI)-1998-7-48

ABDUL HABIB KHAN Vs. RAFAT BEGUM

Decided On July 12, 1998
ABDUL HABIB KHAN Appellant
V/S
Rafat Begum Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. On consent, this revision is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission.

(2.) VIDE order dated 8.8.1996 in Criminal Proceeding No. 282 of 1992 learned Judge, Family Court disposed of three petitions filed by the Petitioner by way of rejecting two petitions and allowing in part the third petition i.e. the petition for amendment of the show cause. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he presses this revision only against the order in partly allowing the amendment petition and not on the order in rejecting the other two petitions. Hence, for the purpose of record, this revision is confined to examine legality and correctness of that part of the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED Judge, Family Court allowed the prayer for adding paragraphs 4 and 5 of amendment in the show cause but rejected the prayer for addition of the facts in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the amendment petition on the ground that it would amount to allowing introduction of new facts. In that connection, the lower Court relied upon two citations viz. (i) : : AIR 1991 Ori 101 Nakula Behera and Ors. v. Damodar Swain Tahasilda Banki and (ii), AIR 1976 SC 686 (not describing the names of the parties). It may be noted that on a reference to, AIR 1976 SC 686 it is noticed that No. law or principle relating to amendment was considered or decided in that case. Apart from that, reporting of that decision starts at page 683 and it relates to a service dispute decided in the forum of Labor Court. It further reveals on a reference to, AIR 1976 SC that two decisions reported at different pages deals with the factum of amendment on different context which are not relevant for the present case. It is hoped and trusted that taught Judge, Family Court who is a senior Judicial Officer in the rank of District and Sessions Judge should be careful in future not to state misleading facts and law in his judgments and orders or to carelessly deal with the case laws in the above noted manner.