Karnataka High Court
Mr Jagadeesh Rao H vs Mr R Nagabhushan Rao on 28 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2749/2020
BETWEEN:
1. MR. JAGADEESH RAO H.
S/O. LATE R PRABHAKARA RAO
AGED 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT "ANNAPOORNA"
KUDWA COMPOUND
KUNTALPADI
KARKALA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 102
2. MR. DINESH RAO
S/O. LATE R PRABHAKARA RAO
AGED 52 YEARS
R/AT "SRI DURGA
K S R TOWNSHIP
2ND LANE, BAJAL
MANGALURU, D.K-575 007
3. MR. R. SATHEESH RAO
S/O. LATE R PRABHAKARA RAO
AGED 49 YEARS
R/AT "ANNAPOORNA HOUSE"
MAYRE KATTE, BILIORE VILLAGE
PERNE POST
BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.-574 241
4. SMT. USHA
D/O. LATE R PRABHAKARA RAO
W/O. MR VADIRAJ
AGED 47 YEARS
2
VASANTHA NIVAS
OPP. MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 102 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR R.NAGABHUSHAN RAO
S/O. LATE R SHYAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANASA
HALEKOTE
BELTHANGADY KASABA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK
D K-574 214
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-CUM-SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
MANGALURU SUB DIVISION
MANGALURU - 575 027 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY P., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2015
(ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUM SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MANGALURU SUB
DIVISION 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN U/S.133 OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 IN CASE NO.MAG.S.R.NO.14/2015-16,
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2016 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED
BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE MANGALURU SUB DIVISION 2ND RESPONDENT
HEREIN UNDER SEC.136 OF CRPC 1973, IN CASE
NO.MAG.S.R.NO.14/2015-16.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.01.2021, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the order dated 31.10.2015 vide Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2 exercising the powers under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and so also to quash the order dated 10.03.2016 vide Annexure-B passed by respondent No.2 exercising the powers under Section 136 of Cr.P.C. in case No.MAG.S.R.No.14/2015-16 and to grant such other reliefs as deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.1 approached respondent No.2 by filing the petition/application under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. claiming certain easementary rights over the land in Sy.No.161/1 measuring 1.73 acres and Sy.No.161/2 measuring 2.96 acres of Rayee Village of Bantwal Taluk, as a result, the case has been registered as MAG.S.R.No.14/2015-16. The said petition was filed on 25.10.2014 during the pendency of the suit filed for partition by 4 the parties, who are the co-owners. It is the case of the petitioners herein that one Mr.Ramesh Rao, who is the brother of these petitioners has been arrayed as respondent in the said proceeding and these petitioners have not been arrayed as parties in the said proceedings though they are co owners of the schedule property. It is also their contention that one Mr. Shyama Rao was the propositus. He held several immovable properties and the schedule property including its larger extent. One Mr. Prabhakar Rao, who is the father of these petitioners had five children. Respondent No.1 is also the son of the said propositus Mr. Shyama Rao. Ramesh Rao, who had been arrayed as respondent is one of the sons of Prabhakar Rao. The suit was filed by other two sons of the said propositus Mr. Shyama Rao in the year 2013 itself. It is also averred that even no notice has been issued to Mr. Ramesh Rao, who has been arrayed as respondent in the said proceedings. The impugned orders at Annexures-A and B are obtained behind the back of the petitioners herein and also the said Ramesh Rao. It is also contended that suit was compromised by filing the compromise petition on 04.03.2017 and also preliminary decree was drawn in terms of Annexure-E. It is also contended that the RTC 5 pertaining to the schedule property at Annexure-F also does not disclose any pathway. It is also contended that consequent upon this order, the respondent trespassed the property of the petitioners and also tried to make use of the pathway. As a result, the case was registered in terms of Annexure-G. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also produced at Annexure- H, the copy of the petition/application filed before respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 in terms of Annexure-H.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that these petitioners are the co-owners along with Mr.Ramesh Rao in respect of the subject matter of the property in question. It is also contended that respondent No.2, in the absence of said Ramesh Rao, obtained the report from Tahsildar and the police and passed the impugned orders, though there was no phodi in respect of the subject matter of the land. It is also contended that this order is passed in the absence of these petitioners, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.2 has exercised his power without jurisdiction.
6
5. Learned counsel relying upon the provisions of Sections 147, 145, 133 of Cr.P.C. and so also Sections 137 and 138 of Cr.P.C., would submit that under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. the easmentary rights cannot be considered by exercising the powers vested under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. As envisaged under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., the alleged nuisance is not a public nuisance. Learned counsel would further submit that no evidence has been recorded though the procedure is quashi judicial in nature. Hence, respondent No.2 has not applied his mind. When the subordinate officials have prepared the note passing the conditional order vide Annexure-A, the same has been made absolute vide Annexure-B. The order has been passed even without service of notice against the said Ramesh Rao, who has been arrayed as respondent in the said proceedings and directed to cause removal of obstructions in respect of the propertyies bearing Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. These petitioners are the owners in respect of Sy.No.161/1 and the matter had already been compromised before the Civil Court. The dispute is only in respect of Sy.No.161/3. It is further submitted that on perusal of 7 the impugned orders at Annexures - A and B, it is clear that respondent No.2 exercised his power without jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2005) 9 SCC 36 and brought to the notice of this Court para Nos.10, 11 and 13. Learned counsel referring to para No.10 would contend that the Apex Court has observed that there are three remedies under the criminal law. The first relates to the prosecution under Chapter XIV of IPC. The second provides for summary proceedings under Sections 133 to 144 of the Code, and the third relates to remedies under special or local laws. Sub-section (2) of Section 133 postulates that no order duly made by a Magistrate under this Section shall be called in question in any Civil Court. The provisions of Chapter X of the Code should be so worked as not to become themselves a nuisance to the community at large. Although every person is bound to so use his property that it may not work legal damage or harm to his neighbour, yet on the other hand, no one has a right to interfere 8 with the free and full enjoyment by such person of his property, except on clear and absolute proof that such use of it by him is producing such legal damage or harm. Therefore, a lawful and necessary trade ought not to be interfered with unless it is proved to be injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community. Proceedings under Section 133 are not intended to settle private disputes between different members of the public. They are in fact intended to protect the public as a whole against inconvenience. A comparison between the provisions of Sections 133 and 144 of the Code shows that while the former is more specific, the latter is more general. Therefore, nuisance specially provided for in the former section is taken out of the general provisions of the latter section. The proceedings under Section 133 are more in the nature of civil proceedings than of criminal nature.
7. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court para No.11 of the judgment, wherein the Apex Court held that the guns of Section 133 go into action wherever there is public nuisance. The public power of the Magistrate under the Code is a public duty to the members of the public who are victims of the 9 nuisance, and so he shall exercise it when the jurisdictional facts are present. "All power is a trust - that we are accountable for its exercise - that, from the people, and for the people, all springs and all must exist." The conduct of the trade must be injurious in praesenti to the health or physical comfort of the community. There must, at any rate, be an imminent danger to the health or the physical comfort of the community in the locality in which the trade or occupation is conducted. Unless, there is such imminent danger to the health or physical comfort of that community or the conduct of the trade and occupation is in fact injurious to the health of the physical comfort of that community, an order under Section 133 cannot be passed. A conjoint reading of Sections 133 and 138 of the Code discloses that it is the function of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and to decide as to whether there was reliable evidence or not to come to the conclusion to act under Section 133.
8. Learned counsel further brought to the notice of this Court para No.13 of the judgment, wherein the Apex Court held that to bring in application of Section 133 of the Code, there must be imminent danger to the property and consequential 10 nuisance to the public. The nuisance is the concomitant act resulting in danger to the life or property due to likely collapse, etc. The object and purpose behind Section 133 of the Code is essentially to prevent public nuisance and involves a sense of urgency in the sense that if the Magistrate fails to take recourse immediately, irreparable danger would be done to the public.
9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manjayya Hegde v. Mahabala Shetty and Others reported in ILR 1968 (Mysore) 147, wherein this Court held that when an application is filed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that a certain person has put up an obstruction on a path, which is alleged to be a public path, the Magistrate should send a show cause notice to the counter-petitioner and when he or his representatives appears, the Magistrate should question him as to whether he denied the existence of the public way; and if he did, the Magistrate has to enquire into the matter and if he finds reliable evidence in support of the denial, he should stay the proceedings until the question is decided by a competent Civil Court. If, on the other hand, he finds that there is no reliable evidence in 11 support of the denial, he has to proceed under Section 137 of the Criminal Procedure.
10. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Fakirappa Bharamappa Machanahalli v. Gouskhan Soudagar by L.Rs. reported in ILR 1968 (Mysore) 150 and brought to the notice of this Court para No.13 referring to Section 133(1)(b), wherein it is held that the conduct of any trade or occupation should be injurious to the health or the physical comfort of the community for taking action under Chapter X-B. Expression 'community' is used in its larger and more popular meaning. It would mean 'public' or 'neighbours' 'residents of the entire locality' and not an individual or the residents of a house. An individual or the member of his house, hold certainly would not constitute 'community' in its true sense. So the argument advanced by Sri. S.K.Joshi that the 2nd respondent and the members of his house-hold do constitute 'community' within contemplation of Section 133 (1) Cr.P.C. as they being part of the community may not hold water for the simple reason that the expression 'community' is not used with such a narrow meaning.
12
11. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of Chindaiah v. Gopala Iyengar reported in ILR 1986 Kar. 1222 and brought to the notice of this Court para No.3 referring to Section 133(1) of Cr.P.C., wherein it is held that if, on taking evidence, he thinks fit and considers such obstruction or nuisance should be removed, then he has to make, in the first instance, a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance of any of the descriptions mentioned above to remove the same or desist and stop from doing any of such things as enumerated in sub-clauses (i) to (vi) of Clause (f) of Section 133(1) of the Code within a time to be fixed in the order or if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order and show cause why the order should not be made absolute.
12. Referring to these judgments, learned counsel would vehemently contend that the order has been passed without jurisdiction and no evidence has been recorded and so also the impugned order is passed behind back of the respondent, who has been arrayed and also in the absence of these petitioners, 13 who are the co-owners of the property. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that the allegation is made against one Ramesh Rao, who caused the obstruction. Hence, the application was filed to remove the obstruction caused by him and accordingly, these petitioners have not been arrayed as parties to the proceedings. Learned counsel also would submit that the dispute is in respect of Sy.No.161/3 and not in respect of Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. The obstruction has been caused in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.161/3. Hence, the proceedings was initiated and the conditional order was passed and thereafter, final order came to be passed vide Annexure-B. These petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also contended that respondent, who has been arrayed in the said proceedings has already approached the Revisional Court for exercising the criminal revisional jurisdiction in Crl.R.P.No.33/2020 and the same is pending for consideration.
14
14. Learned counsel also would submit that the person, who has been arrayed before respondent No.2 did not appear and contest the matter and these petitioners are not the owners. Hence, they cannot find fault with the impugned orders. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on perusal of Annexures-A and B, it is clear that the order has been passed in respect of Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. The fact that these petitioners are the co-owners in respect of the property is not in dispute and also in the compromise petition, which had been entered in the civil suit is in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.161/1, which is allotted in favour of these petitioners. It is also contended that no phodi work was taken place and no where in the RTCs it is mentioned that the land is kharab land. Learned counsel also would submit that under Section 137 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have to deny the same, if the same is not made and they cannot deny the same in future. Hence, the present petition is filed on three grounds mainly. The first ground is that the order has been passed without jurisdiction and the second is that these petitioners have not been arrayed as parties to the proceedings, but their rights 15 have been violated by passing the order in respect of the properties of all these petitioners. It is also contended that respondent No.2 has exercised the power in respect of private property and the same is not a public nuisance as envisaged under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and the order passed by the respondent is without jurisdiction. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
15. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that respondent No.2 has exercised its jurisdiction within the scope and ambit of Sections 133, 136, 144, 145 and 147 and the same is in accordance with law.
16. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and so also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:- 16
i) Whether the impugned orders passed in case
No.MAG.S.R.No.14/2015-16 at Annexures-A
and B are sustainable in the eye of law?
ii) What order?
Point No.(i):-
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respondents and also the grounds urged in the petition, before going to consider the grounds urged in the petition, it is appropriate to consider the contents of the representation given by the first respondent before the second respondent. On perusal of Annexure-H, the representation of the first respondent given before the second respondent, the sum and substance of the petition is that the first respondent and his brother are joint owners of the property bearing Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. The first respondent had purchased the property bearing Sy.No.161/3P1 of Rayee Village from his aunt Smt. Seethamma. In order to connect the house property of the family situated in Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2, there is a road way. The property bearing Sy.No.161/3P1 is situated in the eastern side of the family property bearing Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. To connect the family property and the house therein, a road way has been 17 passed in Sy.No.161/3P1 and the said road way is in use and enjoyment since more than 80 years. At the time of purchase of the property Sy.No.161/3P1, the road was in existence. It is also his case that the said property was sold in favour of said Ramesh Rao in the year 1999 and that he orally admitted, he would not cause any obstructions to family property. However, he had planted rubber plants in Sy.No.161/3P1 measuring 3.40 acres and he had put the gate with the consent of the family members. It is the case of the first respondent before the second respondent that the road way connecting the family property of the respondent and the property sold in favour of the said Ramesh Rao in Sy.No.161/3P1 deviates from Moodubidre-B.C. Road P.W.D Road at a place called 'Koila'. The said road is popularly known as Koila-Horangala road. A portion of the said road up to the place called "Palla" is maintained by the Rayee Gram Panchayath. After that the said road way passes in the property of one Sri. Nagaraj Shetty. The said owner never obstructed the enjoyment of the road way and the said road deviates towards west to the family property of the first respondent and the road proceeds in the northern side connects to the house of one Ms.Leela and proceeds up to a stream. 18
18. It is contended that road way is not only required for the beneficial enjoyment of the respondent No.1 but also to the properties of others. However in the first week of October 2014, the said Ramesh Rao had caused obstruction to the enjoyment of the road way by locking the gate. Hence, he had approached the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that they were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings before the second respondent. On perusal of the entire contents of the petition filed under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. by the first respondent herein, his grievance is against the said Ramesh Rao that he had blocked the pathway, which is in existence in Sy.No.161/3P1. There is no averment in the petition that road was blocked in Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2.
19. The petitioners are claiming that they are the owners of the property bearing Sy.No.161/1 to the extent of 1.43 acres. On perusal of the entire contents of the petition of the first respondent, the grievance is only against the said Ramesh Rao that he is causing obstruction by blocking the pathway connected to Sy.No.161/3P1. The contention of these petitioners is that they were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings and 19 behind their back, the order has been obtained. It is also the contention that the said Ramesh Rao was also not served in the said proceedings.
20. Having perused the Annexure-B, the order dated 10.03.2016, in the bottom of the order, it has been specifically stated that inspite notice was given to said Ramesh Rao through the Revenue Inspector and the same was served, he did not choose to appear before the second respondent. Hence, the first contention that no notice was served on the said Ramesh Rao, cannot be accepted. It is also pertinent to note that these petitioners in an ingenious method have not arrayed the said Ramesh Rao as a party to this proceedings. It is also pertinent to note that the said Ramesh Rao already has filed the Revision Petition before the District Court challenging the order passed by the second respondent and the same is pending.
21. The three grounds of arguments before this Court are that they were not arrayed as parties in the proceedings before the second respondent even though they are co-owners. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the grievance is against the said Ramesh Rao in respect of 20 Sy.No.161/3P1 that he is blocking the road, which is in existence and connects the property bearing Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. It is the claim of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property in Sy.No.161/1 and also relied upon the decree passed in the civil suit in terms of the compromise. The claim of the first respondent herein is not in respect of Sy.No.161/1. That apart his claim is that the road is blocked in Sy.No.161/3P1 which connects to the property in Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. When such being the case and the contention of the first respondent is also beneficial to the present petitioners in respect of Sy.No.161/1 and 161/2 and so also that the claim is made in respect of path way pertaining to both the Sy.Nos, nothing is on record to show that how these petitioners have been effected.
22. The grievance is only against the said Ramesh Rao and hence, the very contention that they have not been arrayed as parties, cannot be accepted. If the grievance is in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.161/1, then there would have been force in the contention of the petitioners herein.
23. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that in the order Annexures-A and B, a reference has been made in 21 respect of Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. On meticulous reading of both the orders, a reference has been made by the second respondent in connection with Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2. The road was blocked by the said Ramesh Rao, who is the owner of the property in Sy.No.161/3P1 and in order to clear the path way in respect of Sy.Nos.161/2 and 161/1, the order has been passed. Hence, I am of the opinion that the present petitioners have no locus standi to approach this Court without their rights having not been effected and also that the direction was given against the said Ramesh Rao, who blocked the road.
24. The other contention of the petitioners herein relying upon the several judgments before this Court is that the second respondent cannot adjudicate the matter invoking Sections 133 and 136 of the Cr.P.C. and the same is in respect of private properties and it is not a public nuisance. No doubt, with regard to the principles laid down in the judgments referred to by the petitioners, there is no dispute that the authority can invoke Section 133 of Cr.P.C, if it is in respect of public nuisance as held by the Apex Court (supra). However, it is to be noted that it is the claim of the first respondent herein before the second 22 respondent that the road not only leads to the property bearing Sy.Nos.161/1 and 161/2 but also connects to Moodubidre-B.C. Road P.W.D Road at a place called 'Koila'. The said road is popularly known as Koila-Horangala road and the other owners of the property have not blocked the road. The said Ramesh Rao though orally admitted that he would not block the road, with the consent had put the gate. But he blocked the road by locking the same. As a result, the same would not amounts to nuisance to the general public. The grievance of the petitioners before second respondent is that the said road is used from last 80 years not only by the first respondent herein but also the publics are using the same since long ago. The same is required for the beneficial enjoyment of the property of the first respondent herein and also to the property of other general public. When such being the contention raised in the application in terms of Annexure-H, the very contention of the petitioners that the private rights of the parties have been effected, cannot be accepted. I have already pointed out that these petitioners have no locus standi to raise the issues as the very rights have not been effected and the said direction was given against the said 23 Ramesh Rao, who blocked the road which is in existence in Sy.No.161/3P1.
25. The third contention of the second respondent is that the evidence has not been recorded and the second respondent has not applied his mind though it is a quasi judicial body. The records also would reveal that inspite notice was issued to the said Ramesh Rao, he did not choose to appear and contest the matter, the second respondent passed the conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, having obtained the report from Tahsildar and also the from the police has come to the conclusion that the road was in existence prior to that and publics are using the same and an order has been passed. Now the matter is ceased before the District Court by filing the revision petition before the District Court by the said Ramesh Rao. The appropriate Court has to take a decision as to whether the order passed by the second respondent is in accordance with law or not. This Court by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot decide the same and the same has to be decided before the appropriate forum. This Court also cannot 24 from any opinion when the matter is pending before the District Court.
26. Having perused the application filed by the respondent before second respondent and considering the orders passed by the second respondent, even though it was the contention of the petitioners that they have not been arrayed as parties, as I have already pointed out that they are not the necessary parties before the second respondent. The grievance of the first respondent before the second respondent is that the said Ramesh Rao blocked the road and there is no grievance against these petitioners. Hence, it is held that these petitioners have no locus standi to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and also there is no need to make them as parties to the proceedings before the second respondent. The other contention that the second respondent ought not to have invoked Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is a matter of fact in issue to be decided by the appropriate authority when the matter is ceased of in the District Court with regard to invoking of the said provisions. The third contention is also with regard to no enquiry. When these petitioners have no locus standi, they cannot raise the said 25 contention before the Court in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out by this Court that the said Ramesh Rao was not arrayed as party in this proceedings and an ingenious method has been adopted to deviate the same and when the said Ramesh Rao was a party in the proceedings before the second respondent, the petitioners ought to have made him as a party to this proceedings.
27. Having considered the material on record and also the orders passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-A and B and also taking into consideration of all the materials on record, it is not a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the second respondent. The Revision petition is also pending before District Court which has been questioned by the said Ramesh Rao and the same has to be decided in accordance with law.
28. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is dismissed.26
In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE PYR/cp*