LAWS(PAT)-1958-5-1

SARJU PRASAD SAO Vs. RAM CHANDRA SINGH

Decided On May 15, 1958
SARJU PRASAD SAO Appellant
V/S
RAM CHANDRA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relevant for decision of the points raised before this Court are as follows. There was a dispute relating to the possession of some lands between the parties. A proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up. The petitioner was the first party whereas the members of the opposite party in this Court were the second party in that case. The proceeding was finally disposed of by Mr. R. N. Sinha, a Magistrate with first class powers of Arrah, on 23-11-1953. The learned Magistrate declared that the disputed lands were in the possession of the second party. The last sentence of his order was: "First party to bear the pleader's cost incurred by the second party." Mr. R. N. Sinha was thereafter transferred from Arrah, but the actual date of his transfer is not apparent from the record. On 6-9-1954, the opposite party filed an application under Section 559 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the District Magistrate with the prayer that the successor to Mr. R. N. Sinha be appointed. By an order of the same date, the District Magistrate directed the Sub-divisional Officer of Arrah Sadar to dispose of the matter, or, in other words, he appointed the Sub-divisional Officer to be the successor of Mr. R. N. Sinha. The opposite party tiled an application on 15-9-1954, before the Sub-divisional Officer for assessment o the costs. By an order dated 8-12-1955, the bub-divisional Magistrate has assessed the costs payable by the petitioner to the opposite party at Rs. 1,596/-. This application in revision is directed against that order.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Kailash Rai has raised three points. His first point is that the Magistrate who passes an order under Section 145, Section 146 or Section 147 must himself pass an order under Sub-section (8) of Section 148 for payment of costs by one party or the other, and that he must also assess the amount of costs. In my opinion, this argument is not quite correct. Sub-section (3) of Section 148 reads:

(3.) I may now refer to some of the decisions which have been cited at the bar. The earliest decision of the Calcutta High Court, which has been cited, is the one in Bhojal Sonar v. Nirban Singh, ILR 21 Cal 609. A Division Bench consisting of Beverley and Hill, JJ. held that even where a Magistrate, who passed the final order under Section 145, directed the payment of costs by one party, his successor had no jurisdiction to assess the actual amount of costs more than two years after the date of the original order.