NACHATTAR SINGH Vs. KANWALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nachattar Singh, petitioner, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the Executive Magistrate-cum-Presiding Authority, Samana, dated 15th September, 1979, whereby his evidence was closed.

(2.) 10th July, 1979, was the first date for the evidence of the petitioner. On that day, the case was adjourned for 26th July, 1979 and then to 4th August, 1979. In the order of 4th August, 1979, it has been stated that witness Satya Pal be summoned again on furnishing correct address and the process-fee to be paid within two days and for summoning the Presiding Officer and the Chaukidar, the case was directed to come up on 18th August, 1979. On 18th August, 1979, Satya Pal witness could not be summoned as his correct address was not furnished within the time allowed. However, the learned Executive Magistrate adjourned the case for 4th September, 1979 and directed that Dasti summons be obtained for summoning the witnesses. On 4th September, 1979, the statement of the Presiding Officer was recorded and the case was adjourned for 15th September, 1979, stating that last opportunity be given to the petitioner to produce his evidence. On 15th September, 1979, the impugned order was passed. Though the evidence of the petitioner was closed by this order, yet he was directed to produce his documentary evidence, if any, on 25th September, 1979, stating that last opportunity be given to the petitioner to produce his evidence. On 15th September, 1979, the impugned order was passed. Though the evidence of the petitioner was closed by this order, yet he was directed to produce his documentary evidence, if any, on 25th September, 1979 and the petitioner was also entitled to come in the witness-box as his own witness. On 25th September, 1979, the petitioner could not attend the Court as he was alleged to be ill and the case was adjourned for 28th September, 1979. On this date, i.e. 28th September, 1979, the petitioner moved an application that he has filed a petition in the High Court and 28th September, 1979, is the date fixed therein, and, therefore, be case may be adjourned for any other date, and, consequently, the case was adjourned for 3rd October, 1979. On 3rd October, 1979, the case was again adjourned on payment of Rs. 10/- as costs for 11th October, 1979. On this date, the costs were not paid nor the petitioner was present. Consequently, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and the case was fixed for arguments on 30th October, 1979. It may be stated here that this Court at the time of motion hearing only directed the learned Magistrate not to pass the final order. Under these circumstances, it was the duty of the petitioner to comply with the order of the learned Executive Magistrate passed from time to time. Since he failed to avail the opportunities given to him even after the passing of the impugned order by virtue of his conduct, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The whole intention seems to be to delay the proceedings on one ground or the other. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since his client was behind the bars and was released on 27th July, 1979, his evidence should not have been closed on 25th September, 1979. He has no explanation for his subsequent conduct. His only argument is that the conduct should not be taken into consideration while considering the impugned order. This contention is misconceived. In a petition under Article 227, the whole conduct of the petitioner is very material and if from the conduct of the petitioner, the Court is satisfied that the whole purpose was to delay the proceedings, no discretionary relief can be granted to such a person.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 200/-.