RAM NARESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

(2.) THE petitioner and opposite party no. 2 are neighbours. A dispute amongst them with regard to certain construction led to filing of Case No. 114M of 2003 by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 and Case No. 115M of 2003 by the opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner. While the petitioner decided to let peace prevail between them by not pursuing the matter against the opposite party no. 2, opposite party no. 2 thought otherwise. This led to the final order dated 19.6.2004 by the Executive Magistrate holding that it was necessary to require the petitioner to execute the bond to maintain peace under Section 107 Cr.P.C. THE petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate against the order wno on 26.7.2004 set aside the order dated 19.6.2004 as having been passed beyond time.

(3.) IF that be the correct position in the law and the Executive Magistrate acted without jurisdiction after the expiry of six months without any valid orders for extension of the proceedings, the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 26.7.2004 loses its significance. The validity or invalidity of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on that ground was hardly the subject matter of correction in the revisional proceedings. The Revisional Court does not appear to have appropriately discussed the aspect of non-extension of the period of the proceeding. While acknowledging that there had been no orders for extension of Case No. 115M of 2003 before expiry of six months from the date of initiation of the proceeding, the Revisional Court considered the same irrelevant because of the petitioner not questioning the same. The Revisional Court considered the same sufficient to lend validity to what was otherwise an invalid order.