Read Time: 05 minutes
Petitioner had alleged that while the summons were still not served and the revision-applicant was directed to do pairvi, the District Judge proceeded to pass order summoning the record of the execution case instead of record of the suit.
In a departure from the ordinary course, the Allahabad High Court has directed the District Judge, Varanasi to appear before the Court on the next date fixed by the bench, along with the original record of a case.
While passing such direction, the Court stated that in the present case, the ordersheet reflected that the District Judge is in the habit of committing impropriety in the discharge of his judicial function.
Justice Ajit Kumar noted, “I am reminded that the same District Judge, Varanasi had earlier committed similar mistake by admitting one revision petition without condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and when the matter was filed before this Court under Article 227 No.7629 of 2021 and the report was summoned, the District Judge submitted a report that it had happened due to oversight. Court took lenient view in the matter and refrained from referring the matter of judicial conduct on administrative side. This matter was disposed of by this Court on 18.10.2022”.
The counsel for the petitioner, Tejas Singh had submitted that the District Judge had proceeded to pass an order summoning the record of the execution case, instead of record of the suit, while the summons were still not served and parties had been directed to the pairvi.
It was further submitted that when the revision-applicant was directed to do pairvi (to pursue), through orders dated 22nd and 26th of August 2022, the lawyers had abstained from work on the fixed date (7-9-2022), due to which the matter was not taken up. While on the next fixed date the presiding officer was himself busy with administrative work and with that in hindsight, District Judge proceeded to pass the summoning order (12-10-2022).
Furthermore, he asserted that consequently, on the next dates, even when the opposite party appeared in revision, the matter was not taken up as the lawyer abstained from work and prior to the date fixed after reply to objections were filed, the matter was taken up on 1-11-2022 without assigning any special reason for recalling the file and further summoning the executing court's order i.e. Parwana.
The court observed, “How the case has been advanced by two weeks to pass the order is not reflected from the order sheet. It is well settled that unless and until Section 5 application is allowed neither the appeal nor the revision can be held to be competent one”.
The bench further passed directions to stay orders of the District Judge, Varanasi dated 12-10-2022 and 1-11-2022 until further orders by the Court.
Case Title: Asheem Kumar Das vs Manish Viswas and Others
Please Login or Register
