DINESH CHANDER SHARMA Vs. DHARAM PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has appeared in person and has prayed that the judgment dated 18.11.2010 passed in Cr.MMO No.76 of 2010 be recalled and same be heard and disposed of afresh in order to do justice to the petitioner. The records of complaints, revisions and Cr.MMO No.76 of 2010 be called for.

(2.) It has been submitted by petitioner that Cr.MMO No.76 of 2010 was filed by him in this Court for calling records of four complaints filed by him and concerned revision petitions and for setting aside the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Una and learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.3, Una in Revision No.12/2006 and Complaint Case No.123-II-2005 respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that in Cr.MMO No.76 of 2010 only the records of complainant No.4 and the related revision petition were called and the records of other three complaints and their related revision petitions were not called. It has been submitted that in absence of complete record, Cr.MMO No.76 of 2010 has been decided by the High Court on 18.11.2010. The present petition has been filed for recalling the judgment dated 18.11.2010 passed in Cr.MMO No.76 of 2010 and thereafter hearing and disposing of the same afresh on merits. The petitioner has relied Vishnu Agarwal vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2011 1 SLJ 411.

(3.) The record of Cr.MMO No.76 of 2010 has been called. The petitioner appeared in person in that petition. The judgment was dictated (oral) in the Court in presence of the petitioner on 18.11.2010. The copy of judgment dated 18.11.2010 filed with the present petition was delivered to the petitioner on 10.12.2010. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 18.8.2012. The petitioner has submitted that no limitation is prescribed for filing the petition of the present nature. Assuming no limitation is provided for such petition but why the petition was not filed within reasonable time after delivery of copy of judgment on 10.12.2010 that has not been explained. The petition suffers from delay and laches