IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.198 of 2008 1. RITESH KUMAR @ TRIPURARI SHARMA 2. SAILESH KUMAR @ BAMBAM SHARMA 3. SHAMBHU NATH SHARMA, @ SHAMBHU SHARMA 1 TO 3 ALL SONS OF LATE RAMESHWAR PD. SINGH 4. DEEPAN PRASAD SHARMA, SON OF LATE SHEODHAR SHARMA 5. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, @ RAM ISWAR PD. SINGH @ RAM ISWAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE BACHCHAN SINGH 6. ABHAY KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAMARCHA SHARMA @ RAMAGYA SHARMA 7. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA 8. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA 9. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA NOS. 7 TO 9 SONS OF LATE MADAN MOHAN SHARMA 10. RADHA MOHAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BANKE BEHARI SINGH 11. SATISH KUMAR 12. MUNNA SHARMA @ MUNNA KUMAR SONS OF LATE MURARI MOHAN PD. SINGH 13. UMRAWATI DEVI @ AMRAWATI DEVI WIFE OF LATE LALAN MOHAN PD. SINGH 14. RANJIT KUMAR, 15. AJIT KUMAR @ AJIT SONS OF LATE LALAN MOHAN PD. SINGH. 16. GEETA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JAIN KUMAR 17. CHANDAN KUMAR, SON OF LATE JAIN KUMAR 18. SANJEEB KUMAR, SON OF LATE SACHCHIDA NAND SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- SONA, P.S.- NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. BALESHWAR PASWAN SON OF LATE SOHRAI PASWAN 2. RAJ NATH PASWAN, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA PASWAN, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- KARARIYA DARIAPUR, P.S.- NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR. For the petitioners : Mr. Sheo Nandan Roy, Sr. Advocate For the O.Ps. : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP ----------- 3 07.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are first party to the proceeding which was initially initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. but was later converted into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C(for short the Code). 2 The issue relating to possession was contested in the first court inasmuch as rejoinder/show cause/written statement were filed and thereafter evidence was led. It appears that the second party (O.Ps) thereafter defaulted in appearing before the learned Magistrate for advancing final submissions/arguments for few months. Faced with this situation, learned Magistrate by a reasoned order disposed of the proceeding whereby the possession of first party was declared with respect to the disputed land. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the second party preferred Cr. Rev. no. 691 of 2002 (Baleshwar Paswan & Ors versus Rameshwar Prasad Singh & Ors). Learned revisional court on a consideration of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that there was breach of Section 145(4) of Cr.P.C. Having found so, the revision was disposed of in the following terms: “Under the circumstances I am of the view the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the result this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back for disposal. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case within four months of this order in accordance with legal provisions as contained in section 145 of the Cr.P.C.“ Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second party would not be entitled to any relief as they designedly defaulted in appearing before the learned Magistrate. It is stated that on 15.1.2002, the case was posted for argument whereafter the opposite party (second party) defaulted in appearing before the learned Magistrate and making final 3 submissions in the matter although evidence(s) were led on their behalf. It is thus the contentions of the petitioners that the matter may be remanded back to the learned revisional court for deciding the revision on merit . Learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party (second party) submits that going by the provisions contained in the Code, there was a violation of Section 145(4) of the Code. Since the matter has been remanded, this court would refrain from exercising its jurisdiction. It is further submitted that way back in the year 1994, this Court in Cr. Rev. no. 604 of 1994 had observed that the Section 145 proceeding should be concluded within a reasonable time, the opposite party may be directed to make arguments on a particular/firm date fixed by the learned Magistrate failing which no such issue shall be raised on their behalf. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. The revisional court has found that the order impugned dated 17.7.2002 was passed without affording opportunity to the opposite party (second party) for making/submitting arguments and as such there was apparent violation of the statutory provision and the matter has thus been remanded for a fresh disposal within a particular time frame. This court does not deem it appropriate to interfere therewith. The application is disposed of by the following order: (i) Both the parties undertake to appear before the 4 court below within three weeks from today along with a copy of this order. (ii) Learned Magistrate shall fix a firm date for making submissions by the parties. No further adjournment shall be granted. If any party defaults in making submissions on that date, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law on the basis of materials already on record. The party who defaults in utilizing the aforesaid opportunity shall not be allowed to raise any grievance that the order was passed without affording him or them a reasonable opportunity of making submissions/arguments. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )