HARBILAS Vs. BALBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Executing Court (Annexure P-3) and the order passed subsequently by the Additional Sessions Judge (Annexure P-5).

(2.) It would be necessary to just refer to few facts. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife, which was allowed. The husband failed to pay and therefore, the wife filed an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for enforcement of the maintenance order dated 04.10.2011. On 202014 the execution proceedings were dismissed in default for want of prosecution and the Civil Judge noted in its order that the decree holder had failed to place on record the certified copies even though a period of two months had passed. Subsequently, the wife filed an application seeking restoration of the application and gave an explanation that they had applied for certified copies and it took time, therefore, they could not file it and that application was allowed and the execution petition was restored to its original number and the case was again adjourned for filing the documents.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order, the husband filed a revision challenging the order of restoration on the plea that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to restore the execution petition which was dismissed and he had no power to review or recall his own order and it was mandatory for Magistrate to issue notice to him.