RAM NIWAS Vs. GANGA SAHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record of the writ petition including the impugned order dated 9 -10 -2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui. This petition is based on facts which are at odds with facts as recorded in the impugned order dated 9 -10 -2012. While the impugned order records the fact that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared before the court on 9 -10 -2012, this petition is supported by a document i.e. an application purportedly filed before the trial court by the plaintiff Nathu Singh on 9 -10 -2012. Further, while the impugned order records that the clerk of the Advocate for the plaintiff appeared in court and informed the court that cross examination of defence witness would not be undertaken on the said day without indicating reason thereof, this petition is founded upon an affidavit of the Advocate that on 9 -10 -2012 when the matter came up before the trial court, the cousin of the counsel had expired, owing to which the Advocate for the plaintiff could not be present in the court.

(2.) TO address the present writ and consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 9 -10 -2012 would entail placing reliance on the facts averred in contradiction to those recorded by the trial court in the order dated 9 -10 -2012. This is not legally permissible as there is a presumption in law with regard to regularity of judicial proceedings. Consequently, it would not be proper for this court to evaluate the legality and propriety of the order dated 9 -10 -2012 on new facts pleaded in this petition.