Kartik Sena Singha vs Debashis Chakraborty And Anr

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondent No.1.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 05.06.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj in Criminal Revision No.62(4)/2009, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 28.04.2009, passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Karimganj, in Case No.133(M)/2009, under Section 145/146 CrPC.

Briefly stated, respondent No.1 Debashis Chakraborty/the first party filed a petition before the Addl. District Magistrate, Karimganj to initiate a proceeding u/s.145/146 CrPC, submitting inter alia that he has purchased the land mentioned in the schedule from one Shyamal Singha on 24.02.2009. Since then the land has been occupied by him. However the present petitioner/opp. party No.1/Kartik Sena Singha with a view to construct house over the land, attack and assault said Debashis Chakraborty to which he protested. After the incident, said petition was filed by respondent/first party, with a prayer to protect the possessory right of the 1st party from the second party over the scheduled land. Accordingly Misc. Case No.133/2009 was registered and the proceeding was drawn by the learned trial Court and passed the attachment order dated 28.04.2009, prohibiting both the parties not to enter into the disputed land, with direction to the O.C. of the concerned Police Station to execute the order.

Now according to the petitioner, who is the second party No.1 in the said proceeding, entered his appearance before the learned Court below and the 2nd party No.2, Shyamal Sinha submitted before the Court that he has no objection as regards proceeding against the present petitioner but he has no claim over the land. The petitioner herein entrusted his case to the engaged counsel but as there was no representation in the said case, the learned Court disposed of the case exparte by the order dated 22.10.2009. The petitioner however preferred a revision against the exparte order before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Karimganj, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.62(4)/2009. But unfortunately due to non-representation by his engaged counsel, the said revision was also disposed of exparte on 05.06.2010.

The present revision has been preferred as against the order dated 22.10.2009 and 05.06.2010, passed by the learned Courts below on the ground that the impugned orders passed illegally by the Court. As regards the order of the learned Trial Court, it has been submitted that the preliminary order was passed by the Court is ex-facie illegal, there being no any mention of schedule and boundary in the order. Moreover the learned Court has not recorded the satisfaction regarding drawal of such proceeding u/s.145 CrPC. Accordingly it is also submitted that the Revisional Court has passed the order without application of mind. Hence both the orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the LCR.

As has been mentioned above, in the petition that was filed by the 1st party/respondent No.1 before the Addl. District Magistrate, he has specifically mentioned that he has purchased the land from the 2nd party/No.2 Shyamal Sinha and was possessing the same. Suddenly the present petitioner attack and assault him, claiming the disputed land. The 2nd party/No.2 by filing his petition has submitted that he has no claim over the disputed land.

On the other hand, although the present petitioner entered his appearance before the Court on 11.05.2009 but remain absent on all the subsequent dates and did not contest the case in any manner, for which the learned trial Court took up the matter exparte in presence of the 1st party and after examining the witnesses etc., on 22.10.2009 dispose the case. There appears no any illegality or irregularity in conducting the case by the learned trial Court, in deciding the case exparte.

Moreover, in the petition filed by the respondent No.1, reveals that he has duly described the disputed land in the schedule of the petition and the learned trial Court in its order dated 28.04.2009, while drawing proceeding, has recorded that he was satisfied that there is apprehension of serious breach of peace and public tranquility in the locality due to the dispute of land mentioned in the complaint petition.

On being satisfied, the learned Addl. District Magistrate has also directed to attach the schedule land u/s.146(1) CrPC, by preventing both the parties from entering into the disputed land. The opp. parties were also directed to submit their written statement in support of their claim over the schedule land. Record reveals that the present petitioner/ opp. party No.1 although appeared before the Court but did not file any written statement whereas the opp. party No.2 submitted no objection (as mentioned above). Contention raised by the present petitioner that case proceed exparte illegally is not sustainable.

One who himself remain idle over his right and obligation, cannot now blame his counsel for non-conducting the case. Being a party to the case, he was under the obligation to have contact with the engaged counsel to apprise his case and also to know about the result of the proceeding but he nowhere contested the case in the trial Court.

Similarly the petitioner also did not turn out before the Revisional Court after filing the revision. The record of the Revisional Court reveals that although the opp. party No.2 appeared in response of the notice issued in the case but the petitioner remain absent throughout the proceeding, so the revision stands dismissed. Again the petitioner is supposed to place his case before the Court but did not turn out to pursue the matter and now tried to blame his counsel. Such a conduct of the petitioner itself is not maintainable. The learned Revisional Court has also appreciated the entire matter before the trial Court and finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the trial Court, dismissed the revision.

It is discernable that the possession of the respondent No.1 over the disputed land has been conferred far back in the year 2009 and obviously he is in the continuous possession of the same and the person from whom the land is stated to have been purchased by the respondent has already conceded to the claim of the said respondent. There appears no any occasion to interfere into the matter more so, once the petitioner has already exhausted the provision of revision, the 2 nd revision is itself not maintainable. The petitioner can also assert his right and claim if any, by way of filing civil suit in due manner.

Accordingly this revision petition stands disposed of.

Return back the LCRs to the concerned Court below with a copy of this judgment.