SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
VYAS PATHAK – Appellant
Versus
PARAMJIT SINGH GANDHI – Respondent
CRMP 421/2022



HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRMP No. 421 of 2022

Vyas Pathak S/o late Shri Kanti Kumar Pathak Aged About 38 Years

R/o Behind Subhash Stadium, Ahmad Ji Colony Civil Line Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Paramjit Singh Gandhi (As Per Memo Of Revision) S/o Shri

Gurudayal Singh Gandhi, R/o C-13/3 Near Wakf Board Office,

Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For petitioner – Shri Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order

10/03/2022

Heard.

1.

The short question involved in this case is that the petitioner who is

a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act his right to evidence was closed on 23/07/2019 against which a

revision was preferred which is bearing No.532/2019 wherein an

application was filed on 12/01/2022 that despite notice the respondent in

the revision is not appearing whereas before the trial court only short

dates are being given for examination of the accused. He would submit

that if the revision of the petitioner is allowed, then it will reopen the case

before the trial court to lead the evidence and in the eventuality the

statement of the accused is recorded and orders are passed, then in such

case the revision shall become infructuous.

2.

Having perused the order dated 23/07/2019 passed by the JMFC,

Raipur it shows that the right to lead evidence was closed for which a

revision was preferred which is pending bearing No.532/2019. In the

meanwhile, it is obvious that if the complaint case is adjudicated, then the

revision which is filed to reopen the evidence of the petitioner shall

become infructuous.

3.

Under the circumstances, it is directed that till the revision No.

532/2019 is decided on merits, there shall be stay of the proceeding of the

complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate. The revisional court may

decide the revision No. 532/2019 within a short span of time.

4.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri)

JUDGE

gouri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top