Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1964 DIGILAW 454 (ALL)

Padmani Devasan v. Major S. Devasan

1964-12-09

B.D.GUPTA

body1964
ORDER B.D. Gupta, J. - This is a petition u/s 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that my order dated 17.8.1964, whereby I rejected a reference made to this Court by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly, be set aside. 2. The facts are that on receipt of the reference from the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it was submitted to me for orders in Chambers on 3.8.1964, and I passed my order rejecting the reference on 17.8.1964. The office report discloses that the record had been received by the office of this Court on 3.7.1964, and a memo of appearance was filed by Sri B.C. Saxena, Advocate, on behalf of the opposite party Major S. Devasan on 27.7. 1964. Since appearance by Sri Saxena had not been filed within two weeks of the receipt of the reference it was submitted to me for orders in Chambers in accordance with Clause (2) of Rule 20 of Chapter XVIII of Rales of this Court which runs as follows: (2) If within two weeks of the receipt of such reference no appearance is put in on behalf of any party the papers shall be submitted to a Judge in Chambers for orders. Where appearance is, put in on behalf of any party before the case is so laid before a Judge it shall be listed in Court for orders." The present application has been made on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Padmani Devasan, on whose behalf of Sri Gopal Behari, Advocate, filed his appearance on 4.8.1964, that is, after the reference had been submitted to me for orders in Chambers. 3. Sri Gopal Behari has urged that since I had not passed any orders until 4.8.1964, on which date he filed his appearance on behalf of the applicant, the orders on the reference should not have been passed by me in Chambers. This contention appears to be wholly devoid of force. There is no controversy that appearance on behalf of the applicant had not been put in by Sri Gopal Behari within two weeks of the receipt of the reference by this Court. This contention appears to be wholly devoid of force. There is no controversy that appearance on behalf of the applicant had not been put in by Sri Gopal Behari within two weeks of the receipt of the reference by this Court. Learned Counsel has, however, relied on the provision that "where appearance is put in on behalf of any party before the case is so laid before a Judge it shall be listed in Court for orders", and has urged that even if appearance is put in after the expiry of two weeks the case should thereafter be listed for orders in Court. I express no opinion on the question whether the case must be listed in Court for orders even though a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the reference had already expired before appearance had been put in on behalf of a party, but it is perfectly clear that there is no question of listing any reference in Court for orders by reason of appearance having been put in on behalf of a party after the reference has been submitted to a Judge in Chambers for orders. It is, therefore, clear that the putting in of appearance by Sri Gopal Behari on behalf of the applicant after the reference had been submitted to mi in Chambers for orders could be of no avail. 4. Learned Counsel then urged that since Sri B.C. Saxena had put in appearance on behalf of the opposite-party Major S. Devasan on 27.7.1964, that is, before the reference had been submitted to me for orders in Chambers on 3.8.1964, the reference should have been listed for orders in Court. This contention is also devoid of force. The fact that Sri B.C. Saxena had put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party Major S. Devasan on 27.7.1964, was noted in the office report dated 31.7.1964, which preceded the laying of the reference before me in Chambers, and I noticed that fact as is clear from my order dated 17.8.1964, in which I have stated that Sri B.C. Saxena may be informed of my order. Since the order passed by me was not to the prejudice of the opposite party Major S. Devasan there was no occasion to hear Sri B.C. Saxena and assuming for the sake of argument that by reason of the putting in appearance by Sri B.C. Saxena he was entitled to be heard, no prejudice has been caused to the opposite-party Major S. Devasan, nor has any grievance been made about it by the latter or his counsel Sri B.C. Saxena, obviously because the order was in favour of that party. It is manifest that the Petitioner Smt. Padmani Devasan can make no grievance about it on that account. 5. The application is without force and is dismissed.