Judgment 1. This petition in revision is directed against an order of a Munsif-Magistrate dated the 12th November, 1968, by which he dismissed the prayer of the petitioner to commit the case before him to the Court of Session to be tried along with the Sessions case of the opposite party. 2. The short facts are that the petitioner filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Officer, Saharsa alleging that, in the morning of the 24th May, 1966, opposite party No. 1 Sundar Paswan was getting Mungmaze and paddy crops of the petitioner grazed by two head a of bullocks. Nabijan, the uncle of the petitioner, protested and drove the bullocks towards the pound. Upon this, Sundar Paswas called his men and they began to assault Nabijan with lathis. Nabijan was examined at the Mehsi hospital on the next day. It is alleged that the complaint was filed along with the receipt granted by the pound-keeper as well as the medical certificate granted by the civil Assistant Surgeon. The learned Sub-divisional Officer took cognizance and transferred the case to the file of Shri B.P. Verma, Munsif-Magistrate first class. There appears to be a counter-case of this version. Opposite party No. 1 lodged a first information report before the police alleging that, on the 24th May, 1966, at about 8 a.m., the petitioner and others of his party came upon the land. The case of the opposite party was that they had taken the land in settlement from the State of Bihar and had erected a residential hut over it; they were living in the hut and were cultivating the land. The petitioner was claiming the land by virtue of settlement from the ex-landlord. The petitioner and others, after coining to the land, asserted their right Opposite party No. 1 was working in the field, along with his cousin. The party of the petitioners assaulted him and fire to the hut which was burnt to ashes. This case was also transferred to the same Munsif-Magistrate, who committed the accused in that case to the Court of Session. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Munsif-Magistrate that as both the cases were in the nature of counter-cases, both of them should he committed to the Court of Session. The learned Munsif-Magistrate rejected this petition. A petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Munsif-Magistrate that as both the cases were in the nature of counter-cases, both of them should he committed to the Court of Session. The learned Munsif-Magistrate rejected this petition. There was a revision before the Sessions Judge, who, though holding that both the cases were counter to each other, declined to make a reference to this Court recommending that this case should also be committed to the Court of Session, on the ground of delay. As against this order, the present revision has been filed. 3. Mr. Brajeshwat Mallik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that real justice to the parties would not be done unless the whole picture of the occurrence is present before the Court. If two Courts try the cases separately, then they will not have the whole picture before them. The version of the counter-case should he examined by the same Judge and then he would be able to do justice to both the parties. The complaint case in the one is the defence case in the other. In support of his argument, he has referred to two cases, namely, Netra Panda V/s. State, 1961 (1) Cri LJ 688 (Orissa) and Thota Ramakrishnayya V/s. State, AIR 1954 Mad 442 , which was followed in the case of Netra Parida, 1961 (1) Cri LJ 688 (Orissa). In the case of Thota Ramkrishnayya there is an elaborate discussion concerning the matter in hand. That case was really an appeal after conviction by the Sessions Judge. Even then, the following observations were mode "The trial of this case is in violation of the injunction of this High Court and other High Courts in a series of decisions and the principle of which is as follows. Where there is a fight between two rival factions which gives rise to the complaint and obunter-complaint it is a generally recognised rule that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge in quick succession." In such cases the first case should be heard and the judgement should be reserved. Then the second case should be taken up and then the judgement should be reserved. The trial Judge will then consider the whole case and come to a definite conclusion and should pronounce the judgement in both the cases on the same date, if practicable. Then the second case should be taken up and then the judgement should be reserved. The trial Judge will then consider the whole case and come to a definite conclusion and should pronounce the judgement in both the cases on the same date, if practicable. In the instant case, there is no doubt that there are injuries on both sides. The time and the place of occurrence are also the same. So it is better if both the cases are tried by the same Judge. The only objection which can be taken to this procedure being adopted is that the petitioner has made inordinate delay in agitating this matter in the criminal case. Before the learned Munsif-Magistrate all the ten witnesses have been examined and the accused have entered upon their defence. Now much is not left to be done in this criminal case. The hearing in the Sessions case has not as yet begun. The real question to be seen is whether this delay should defeat the ends of justice. It may be that the opposite party would be put to some harassment, but that harassment is not appreciable. The ten witnesses may be examined in two or three days only in the Sessions Court. So, the harassment, if any, may be for three days only. On behalf of the opposite party, my attention has been drawn to the case of Arjun Singh V/s. Gangotri Singh, AIR 1956 Pat 530 , which was decided by a Single Judge of this Court. The learned Judge observed that the rule that counter cases should ordinarily be tried by one and the same Court is not a rule which is or can conveniently be universally adhered to. The rule is one of convenience and provisions of the Criminal P.C., cannot be ignored in order to give effect to it. The case before the learned Single Judge was a case which was triable by a Special Judge appointed under Act 46 of 1962. Furthermore, in that case there was no question of an occurrence which was admitted by both the parties to have taken place. There was nothing to show that the two cases could be properly described as counter cases. So this observation does not stand in my way in the view which I am going to take. There cannot be any rule which can be made universally applicable. 4. There was nothing to show that the two cases could be properly described as counter cases. So this observation does not stand in my way in the view which I am going to take. There cannot be any rule which can be made universally applicable. 4. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, I think, for the ends of justice, it is desirable that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge, namely, the Sessions Judge. The learned Munsif-Magistrate would consider the evidence so far recorded by him as an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Criminal P.C. After treating this evidence as a commitment enquiry, if he finds that no prima facie case appears to have been made out against the accused, he may discharge them. But if, on the other hand, he is of opinion that a prima facie case has been made out, he would commit the case for trial to the Court of Session. 5. In the result, this application succeeds is allowed as indicated above.