Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 428 (CAL)

Laxmikanta Panja v. Susoma Rani Panja

2002-07-04

Amit Talukdar

body2002
JUDGMENT Amit Talukdar, J.: This revisional application is directed against the order dated 27.6.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2nd Court) Midnapore in Criminal Motion No. 31/2001 thereby affirming the order dated 27.12.99 passed by the ld. S.D.J.M., Ghatal is Misc. Execution Case No. 12/1999 fixing the main execution case for hearing and refusing the prayer of the petitioner for bringing the case record of Misc. Case No. 46/1983 disposed of on 11.2.1985. 2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that as there was a compromise arrived at between the parties, the O. P. has lost her chance to claim maintenance. He further submitted that unless the record of Misc. Case No.46/1983 are brought before the court and the terms of compromise are perused, a correct decision cannot be arrived at by the learned Magistrate. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge himself found that the records have been misplaced and there was contradictory to this effect and he had ordered an enquiry. As such, it will be proper that the said records should be tagged with the execution case and before the learned Magistrate hear the prayers for execution of the case of the wife-O. P., the said records are required to be looked into. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the O. P. opposes the said submission. He submits that firstly, a compromise arrived at between the parties for seeking the claim for maintenance is against public policy and that cannot have any binding effect. He has relied on of decision of 1987 Cri. L. J. 765, a Sadasivan Pillai vs. Vijaya Lakshmi. He has further submitted that although the Execution case was started on 1999 but till now he has not received any payment and the petitioner is dragging the matter. He has further submitted that as the compromise if at all; can not have any effect on the execution proceeding the question of asking for the records of the same are absolutely redundant and prays for dismissal of the revisional application. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the State also endorses the view of the O. P. 5. Having heard the submissions of the respective parties, I am of the view that no cause for interference have been made out in the present application. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the State also endorses the view of the O. P. 5. Having heard the submissions of the respective parties, I am of the view that no cause for interference have been made out in the present application. Firstly, it is correct as pointed out by the learned advocate for the O. P. that a compromise effected between the parties cannot have any binding effect upon anyone. The decision sought by him (supra) is absolutely trite position and cannot be ignored. The apart by a necessary implication if the compromise petition is redundant that records of the original petition of Misc. Case No. 46/1993 under section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e., the main petition becomes redundant to be looked into and as already the order has been put into execution, it is now only proper that the same reach its logical conclusion which have been pending since 1999 and already the ld. S.D.J.M. has fixed the same for hearing, I do not feel this court should interfere in the matter in the absence of any illegality. Accordingly, having found no merit in the revisional application, the same is dismissed. 6. However, the learned Registrar (I) is requested to see page 3 of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and apprise himself as to how such things––in the giving of erroneous information slip––can happen and the learned Registrar would also apprise himself with regard to the action initiated by the learned District Judge with this regard. 7. The learned S.D.J.M., Ghatal is, however, directed to conclude the Misc. Case No. 12/1999 within a span of 30 days from the date of communication of this order without fail. 8. The revisional application is thus disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.