LAWS(PVC)-1922-6-10

RAM HARI CHAKRAVARTY Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR MANNA

Decided On June 09, 1922
RAM HARI CHAKRAVARTY Appellant
V/S
SANTOSH KUMAR MANNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard on the first and second grounds mentioned in the petition.

(2.) The first and second grounds are, that "The learned District Magistrate's order dismissing the appeal summarily is not proper," and, "That the proper disposal of the appeal required at least an examination of the document, Exhibit A, and the same not having been done, the appeal has not been properly disposed of."

(3.) The petitioners were convicted and they appealed to the District Magistrate who dismissed the appeal summarily. Two of my learned brothers thought it desirable that the learned District Magistrate should show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard. The explanation which has been forwarded by the District Magistrate is as follows : "I should not be justified in taking up their Lordships time over this trumpery case." In my judgment this Rule should be made absolute. The learned Judges on reading the judgment came to the conclusion that it was not a case which should have been dismissed summarily and I see no reason for differing from that opinion. Consequently the Rule should be made absolute.