Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1481 (PNJ)

Amit Jain v. Komal Jain

2016-05-23

HARI PAL VERMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : HARI PAL VERMA, J. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of order dated 11.3.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) whereby on account of non-appearance of the petitioner, he has been proceeded against ex-parte and his conditional warrant of arrest for recovery of decreetal amount has been issued for 22.04.2016. Order dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1), reads as under:- “Today the case was fixed for argument on application under section 125(3) and 125(4) of Cr.P.C., dated 11.2.2016 as well as for payment of decretal amount by JD, the same has not been paid by the JD. Case called several times but no one has come present on behalf of the JD nor JD has appeared in person. In these circumstances, let file be taken up after lunch break for awaiting appearance of JD/respondent.” “File again taken up after lunch break. Case called several times since morning but no one has come present on behalf of the JD nor JD has appeared in person, it appears that the JD is not interested in contesting the case. It is already 2.30 p.m. No further wait is justified as the undersigned has been assigned the duty of conducting interviews from 2.30 p.m., onwards for the posts of peon. Even on the previous date of hearing the JD had failed to appear and to make payment of decretal amount and one adjournment was granted on request of ld. counsel for the JD. Today, no one has appeared on behalf of JD nor JD has appeared in person. As such, JD is hereby proceeded against exparte.” Now, conditional warrants of arrest of JD for the recovery of decretal amount be issued for 22.04.2016.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on that day, the petitioner reached the Court at 3.00 p.m. whereas the case was called at 2.30 p.m., but the learned Magistrate did not hold the Court after 2.30 p.m., as he was busy in conducting interviews. Therefore, non-appearance of the petitioner before pre-lunch session was beyond his control, but petitioner had appeared after post-lunch session. He further contends that the petitioner is ready to join the proceedings. Mr. Navdeep Kalair, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and filed his Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. Therefore, non-appearance of the petitioner before pre-lunch session was beyond his control, but petitioner had appeared after post-lunch session. He further contends that the petitioner is ready to join the proceedings. Mr. Navdeep Kalair, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and filed his Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. He fairly submits that in case, the petitioner appears before the learned Executing Court, he has no objection in case the order dated 11.3.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, is set aside. Taking into consideration the sufficient cause, as shown by counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 11.3.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, is set aside and the petitioner is directed to join the proceedings and the Executing Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. As regards; the prayer of the petitioner that the Executing Court be directed to expedite the disposal of the case, the Executing Court is directed to take note of this aspect as well.