Judgment:
Oral:
Wangdi, J.
1. This matter has been listed today under orders of this Court as it was found that in the statement of pending cases submitted by the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, West Sikkim at Gyalshing, it was indicated that the reason for Private Complaint Case No.4 of 2007 not having been disposed by it thus far was due to order of stay of this Court dated 01-09-2009. Upon perusal of the records of this case, this Court subsequently on 16-11-2009 had also passed the following orders:-
âBEFORE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.WANGDI, JUDGE
03. 16.11.09 Present : Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashim Chettri and Mr. Dhurba Tewari, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. N. Rai, Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Kharka, Advocate along with Mr. Sherpa Bhutia, the respondent in person.
Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
It has been submitted by Mr. N. Rai, learned Advocate, that it would be expedient if the Criminal Case remains adjourned sine die pending disposal of the Civil Suit in which the subject matter of this criminal case is a material issue to be decided therein. Prayer is reasonable.
The Private Complaint Case No.04 of 2007 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, West District at Gyalshing, shall remain adjourned sine die till the disposal of Title Suit No.5 of 2008 before the Court of the learned District Judge, South and West Districts at Namchi.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned District Judge, South and West Districts at Namchi for compliance.
Sd/-
( S. P. Wangdi )
Judgeâ
2. Considering the fact that Title Suit No.05 of 2008 was the reason for the issue of the aforesaid order, records of that case was also called for in order to find out the progress of the case.
3. After having received the case records of Title Suit Case No.05 of 2008 and on perusal of the records of proceedings, this Court is constrained to observe that there has been absolute recalcitrance on the part of the learned Counsels representing the parties. Out of 35 dates fixed there are at least 21 adjournments sought for by the parties on very flimsy grounds which are mostly on the ground of the learned Counsels inability to attend the Court. Deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings has been observed, when it is found that the suit remained pending for over a year commencing from 05-07-2008 to 27-06-2008 on the question of injunction due to the adjournments sought for by the Defendants, of which the Petitioner in the present case is the Defendant No.1, in filing written statements and show causes to the plaint and the written statement. After they finally did so and 27-06-2008 was fixed for hearing, the Plaintiff who is the Respondent No.1 before us, chose not to press the application for injunction.
4. Thereafter, 07-08-2009 was fixed for filing of documents but was adjourned for six times for the same purpose, i.e., 05-09-2009, 03-10-2009, 04-11-2009, 26-11-2009, 11-02-2010 and 12-03-2010. On 12-03-2010, i.e., after almost 9 months, when the Defendant No.2, i.e., Respondent No.2 herein, finally filed his documents, he also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC. However, strangely enough, the said defendant after four dates, i.e., 04-05-2010, 28-06-2010, 23-07-2010 and 06-10-2010, in all covering almost 7 months, also chose not to press the application and was accordingly disposed off.
5. The other disturbing aspect of the case is that adjournments appear to have been granted most liberally and on flimsy grounds for very long periods ranging between 2 and 3 months at least 8 times and, once for 5 months at a stretch. It is only now that the case appears to have progressed with the desired speed, in as much as, an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC on behalf of the Respondent No.1 seeking to file written statement to counter claim of the Petitioner has been disposed of notwithstanding the fact that the application also appears to be highly belated that caused further delay in the proceedings.
6. The above facts and circumstances, undoubtedly establishes that the parties have taken unfair advantage of the order dated 16.11.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition No.5 of 2009 which, therefore, calls for its disposal forthwith. The only reason for this Court in passing the Order dated 16-11-2009 in this Revision which is quite apparent from its bare reading, was that it was impressed by the submission that the subject matter of Private Complaint Case No.4 of 2007 was a material issue in T.S. Case No. 5 of 2008.
7. From the facts and circumstances set out above, there is no manner of doubt that the parties have indulged in dilatory tactics and have subverted the judicial process. It will be travesty of justice if the Revision Petition is allowed to remain adjourned sine die in terms of the Order dated 16-11-2009 and is, therefore, taken up for disposal.
8. Also considered the grounds set up for the Revision of the Order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, West at Gyalshing dated 02-06-2008 in Private Complaint Case No.4 of 2007 by which charge under Section 420 IPC was framed against the Petitioner which, was upheld in Revision by the Learned Sessions Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi, by Order dated 08-04-2009 in Criminal Revision Case No.3 of 2008, and I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Orders. It is open for the Petitioner to raise all grounds set up in the Revision Petition before the Learned Trial Court. In any case, law does not contemplate a Revision against an Order of Revision. The power of Revision under Section 399 Cr.P.C. to be exercised by a Sessions Judge is concurrent to that of the High Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
9. In the result, the Revision Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. Let copies of this order be transmitted to the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, West Sikkim and the learned District Judge, South and West at Namchi, with the direction upon them to dispose of the cases within a period of not less than four months. No extension of this period shall be allowed without the permission of this Court for which necessary requisition shall necessarily be required to be made.
11. Let the records of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.
12. The parties shall appear before the respective Courts on 28-08-2012.