MANOHAR SINGH Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged an order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu dt. 23 -1 -1984 confirming order dated 14 -1 -1984 of Judicial Magistrate (Forest) Jammu, refusing to issue a direction to the respondent in proceedings U/s 145 Cr. P. C. to file his written statement before the same is filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner Manohar Singh filed a report before the Forest Magistrate, Jammu u/s 145 Cr.P.C. on 23 -4 -1983 regarding breach of peace in respect of a shop situate at Jain Bazar, Jammu for initiating the proceedings under the same. It appears that the learned Magistrate vide his order dt. 23 -4 -1983 took cognizance on the report of the petitioner and a preliminary order was drawn up on the same date and notice was issued to the parties concerned to appear before the court below on 26 -4 -83 and file their written statements in respect of their respective claims regarding the possession of the shop in dispute. It was further ordered that the parties if they so choose can file affidavits or adduce any other evidence in support of their claims. The parties some how did not filed their written statements upto 7 -1 -84 when counsel for the petitioner on that date asked for time to file written statements and documents etc. as he was not able to obtain copies of certain documents for preparing the same. On the other hand counsel for respondent appears to have expressed being ready with the written statement etc. which he intended to file together with the petitioner as ordered and in accordance with law. Last opportunity was given to the parties to file their documents by 14 -1 -84 when again counsel for the petitioner took plea that he cannot file the written statement due to non -issuance of copies of Income Tax Returns for basing his claim therefore, further time was asked and at the instance of the petitioner, Income Tax Officer was directed to produce the record. Counsel for the respondent reiterated the stand that his papers are ready but he cannot produce the same for fear of disclosure of his defence and the same will be filed at the time the petitioner produces his written statement and documents. Counsel for the petitioner made an oral prayer before the court below that respondents counsel be directed to file the written statement of his claims which would have enabled the petitioner to prepare and file his documents and the affidavits, which course was objected by counsel for the respondent and the learned trial Magistrate, refused to issue a direction to the respondent to file his written claims and documents in order to enable the petitioner to file his written claim and documents. It is this refusal and non -reviewing of earlier orders by the trial Magistrate, the petitioner challenged the order dt. 14 -1 -84 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, who after hearing counsel for both the parties had confirmed the order of trial court and rejected the revision petition vide order dt. 23 -4 -84 challenged before this court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.