Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 197 (MP)

Budha v. Yadunath Prasad

1994-03-09

P.P.NAOLEKAR

body1994
JUDGMENT In this revision petition the applicants are challenging the order dated 22.3.1990 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amarpatan, district Satna. The only ground on which the revision is challenged by the counsel for the applicants Shri S.D. Khan, is that by not granting adjournment on 21.3.1990, the Court has acted mala fide and, therefore, the order passed on 22.3.1990 is non-est and should not be given effect to. It is stated at the Bar that on 22.3.1990, the applicants have moved an application for transfer of the case from the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar; this application was returned by the Reader of the Court with instructions that it has to be presented before the Sessions Judge, at Satna and accordingly the, applicants moved an application for transfer on 23.3.1990 before the Sessions Judge, Satna and Sessions Judge directed that the application for transfer be placed for hearing, along with record of the trial Court, on 29.3.1990. On 24.3.1990 this order of the Sessions Judge was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amarpatan. It appear that on the aforesaid facts the counsel for the applicants wants to state that although an application for transfer was moved in the Court of Sessions, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeded with the hearing of the case, without granting adjournment, although both parties have requested for the same. The order-sheet dated 21.3.1990 shows that both the counsel appearing for the parties asked for adjournment, but the Court was of the view that granting adjournment will result in the delay of disposal of the case and he does not want to encourage such practice and, therefore, the matter was fixed for 22.3.1990 to file written argument, if the parties so desired. The order-sheet dated 22.3.1990shows that the non-applicants have produced written arguments and the order was pronounced on 22.3.1990. On the aforesaid state of facts it cannot be said that refusal to grant adjournment was malafide. The Presiding Officer is not bound to grant adjournment, even if both the counsel appearing for the parties have requested for time. The order of the Sessions Judge fixed the case for 29.3.1990 was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 24.3.1990 and by that time the order was already pronounced by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On the aforesaid state of facts, there is nothing to indicate that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has acted with malafide intention. The order of the Sessions Judge fixed the case for 29.3.1990 was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 24.3.1990 and by that time the order was already pronounced by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On the aforesaid state of facts, there is nothing to indicate that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has acted with malafide intention. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is without any substance and deserves to be rejected. Consequently the revision fails and is dismissed.