IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-29780 of 2008 (O/M).
Date of Decision : October 28, 2009.
Narinder Kumar
...... Petitioner(s).
Versus.
Raj Kumar ..... Respondent(s).
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner (s).
Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate,
for respondent(s).
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging
the order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Kaithal, vide which the revision petition preferred by the petitioner
stands dismissed, while that of respondent was accepted.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Sessions
Judge, Kaithal, had, vide order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure-P-1), set aside
the order dated 21.05.2007 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal. While doing so, the learned lower Appellate
Court had directed the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, for
affording the parties an opportunity to lead any fresh evidence, if any and
pass a speaking order after application of mind. He further contends that it
has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, that the order
dated 21.05.2007 (Annexure-P-11), passed by learned Sub Divisional
Criminal Misc. No. M-29780 of 2008 . -2-
Magistrate, Kaithal, was without giving notice to the parties. The impugned
order of the learned Sub Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, has also been observed
to be a non speaking order. He, therefore, prays that the option should be
given to the petitioner also to participate in the proceedings before the
learned Trial Court and the dismissal of his revision petition by the learned
Sessions Judge, Kaithal, should not be allowed to act as an impediment or
amount to his claim being rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal,
with regard to portion of the order dated 21.05.2007 (Annexure-P-11),
passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, which was
challenged by the petitioner.
Counsel for respondent submits that in the light of setting aside
of order dated 21.05.2007 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, the contention as raised by counsel for the
petitioner is obvious and needs no clarification.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
records of the case.
It is not disputed that revision petition was preferred by the
petitioner, challenging the order dated 21.05.2007 (Annexure-P-11), passed
by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, vide which a direction
was issued that respondent would not operate his workshop during school
hours only, but liberty was granted to him to run his workshop thereafter.
This part of the order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned
Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Once order dated 21.05.2007 (Annexure-P-11) in
toto has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide order
dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure-P-1) and that too on the ground that the same is
a non speaking order and has been passed without notice to the parties and
Criminal Misc. No. M-29780 of 2008 . -3-
the spot inspection, on the basis of which order was passed, had not been
done in the presence of the parties, therefore, the order cannot be sustained.
It is open to the petitioner to agitate all his points before the learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal. Mere dismissal of revision petition, filed by
the petitioner, would not amount to upholding the part of the order dated
21.05.2007 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the learned Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Kaithal, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the
revision petition.
In view of the above clarification, the learned Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Kaithal, shall be free to pass a fresh speaking order without
being prejudiced by the earlier order dated 21.05.2007, passed by him or by
the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure-
P-1), not accepting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
October 28, 2009.
sjks.