AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, for Respondents first set and for Respondents second set.
This is a petition under Article 226 the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 26.5.1997 recorded by the Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Revision No. 225 of 1996 by which the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed revision application for quashing order dated 14.5.1996 recorded by Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mahua in Case No. 97 of 1996.
It will appear that the case was related to a proceeding which was earlier u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but was converted into a proceeding u/s 145 of the same Code. It will also appear that the learned lower Court was moved in Cr. Revision No. 225 of 1996 (Annexure-9) for quashing of the aforesaid order on the ground that for the same land Title Suit No. 73 of 1995 was pending in the Court of Munsif 2nd at Hajipur, hence such a proceeding before an Executive Court could not proceed.
From reading of the order it will appear that the learned Sessions Judge found that Khata and Khesra numbers of the land in the title suit and in the proceeding did not tally.
On perusal of the record it will also appear that by order dated 21.8.1997 notices were ordered to be issued upon Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 for which requisites were to be filed within a week. It will further appear that by order dated 29.10.1997 this petition was admitted for hearing and again order was recorded for issuance of notices to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and the Petitioners were directed to file requisites within a fixed time failing which the petition was ordered to be dismissed without further reference to the bench. It will appear that for noncompliance of the order dated 29.10.1997 the petition stood dismissed. However, this also appear to have been restored and thereafter by order dated 6.9.2000 two weeks'' time was granted to take steps for fresh service of notice upon Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 failing which the petition, as against them, was to stand rejected. This petition thereafter stood dismissed as against Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 for non-compliance of the order dated 6.9.2000.
The position as it exists is that Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, all sons of late Abdul Hamid, were necessary parties to this petition. But this petition stood dismissed against Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Same petition having been dismissed against two Respondents for all practical purposes, can hardly be heard for considering as to whether this petition can be allowed only in favour of Respondent No. 4 even if the Court was so satisfied.
In view of aforesaid. I do not find that this petition is not competent to be heard in the aforesaid circumstances.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.