JUDGMENT
Uday Sinha, J.
1. This application in revision is directed against the Order of the learned Magistrate dated 26th June, 1973 by which he rejected the prayer of the petitioners for payment of costs incurred by them in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The facts necessary for disposing of the present application are that there was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the petitioners were the first party and the opposite party were arrayed as the second party. The proceeding was disposed of in favour of the petitioners, Shri A.D. Prasad, Magistrate, First Class, Madhubani, declared the possession of the first party over the land in dispute. The second party moved this Court in revision against the final order, but without any success. While the revision application was pending before this court, the petitioners filed an application on 28-9-1972 before Shri A.D. Prasad praying that the opposite party may be directed to pay costs of the proceeding. The matter remained undisposed of and Shri A.D. Prasad was transferred. The case was thereafter recalled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and transferred to the file of Shri S.N. Minz, Magistrate, First Class. Shri Minz heard the parties in regard to the application for costs and by order dated 25-6-1973, the prayer for payment of costs was rejected. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for costs firstly on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to award costs as Shri A.D. Prasad himself had not passed any order for costs. The second ground for rejecting the prayer of the petitioners was that the application for costs was not accompanied by the statement in regard to the expenses incurred by the petitioners.
3. The first ground advanced by the learned Magistrate for rejecting the claim of the petitioners was entirely misconceived. The learned Magistrate was wrong in observing that he had no jurisdiction. It is well settled that the successor Magistrate is as such entitled to award costs as the Magistrate who disposed of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the Magistrate who disposed of the main proceeding did not award costs, his successor would be entitled to do so, provided, of course, the earlier Magistrate who heard the proceeding had not rejected the prayer for costs. The case of Chandrama Rat and Ors. v. Harbans Rai and Ors. A.I.R. 1965 Patna 21 is a clear authority for the proposition that the successor Magistrate may award costs although the earlier magistrate had not passed any order to that effect.
4. Although the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to order payment of costs, I am not inclined to direct payment of costs in this case on the special facts and circumstances of this case. To recaptulate, the learned Magistrate has observed that the petitioners had not filed any statement of expenditure incurred by them. Before this court it has been stated on affidavit that the statement of legal expenses was filed, A statement of legal expenses has been annexed as annexure “1” to this application. Having looked into the entire record I am extremely doubtful if this statement had been filed before the learned Magistrate at all. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to a list of documents in which item No. 1 was mentioned as statement of legal expenditure. There is an endorsement on that list showing that the document filed by the first party had been withdrawn by the counsel. I am at a loss how the statement of legal expenses was considered a document filed in the main proceeding. I do not know why it was permitted to be withdrawn and why it was asked to be returned to the learned Counsel. The list which is on record bears neither the signature of the court nor of the Bench clerk. Be that as it may, even if the statement of legal expenses had been filed, the petitioners having withdrawn it, it would not be right now to let them file another statement of expenditure about six years after the disposal of the main proceeding under Section 145 of the Gode. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept ths prayer of the petitioners.
5. For the reasons stated above, I see no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed,