Madras High Court
G. Gnanaiahpandiyan vs Pazhaniammal on 28 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ2412, I(1997)DMC238
ORDER
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13-2-1995, dismissing the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 3124 of 1994, filed by the petitioner/husband to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance passed in M.C. No. 7 of 1993, dated 23-11-1993, by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Srivilliputhur.
2. The facts of this case involving a chequered history are quite agonizing.
(i) The petitioner Gnanaiahpandiyan, a Police Constable, attached to Soonamedu Police Station, Chengai M.G.R. District, is the husband. The respondent Pazhaniammal of Cheithur village, Kamarajar District, is the unfortunate wife.
(ii) The petitioner and the respondent got married on 24-1-1980 in a temple Arulmigu Thirukanneswarar Alayam, at Seithur, under Hindu rites in the presence of the elders of both the families. Some months later, the wife came to know that the petitioner/husband had illegal contact with several women. Ultimately, the wife was driven out from the matrimonial home, after subjecting her to cruelty. She came to the parent's home, eight years after the marriage. On coming to know that the petitioner herein married one Gowri, as second wife, the parents of the respondent herein reported to the panchayat. The panchayatars convened a meeting and decided that either the respondent must be taken back by the petitioner or else he must at least pay the monthly maintenance amount to her. The husband, however, challenged stating that he would not be bound by the words of the panchayatars, as he is working as a Police Constable.
(iii) Since the petitioner neglected the wife and refused to maintain her, the respondent/wife filed a petition on 5-7-1993, claiming maintenance at Rs. 500/- p.m., from her husband, in M.C. No. 7 of 1993, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Srivilliputhur, stating that her husband was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month.
(iv) On 14-7-1993, the learned Judicial Magistrate, took the case on file and issued notice to the petitioner, the Police Constable attached to Soonammedu police station, Chengai M.G.R. Dist. Since, on 13-8-1993, the next hearing, the petitioner/husband was not present, the learned Judicial Magistrate issued fresh notice, asking the petitioner/husband to appear before the Court on 10-9-1993. Notice was served upon him through the Sub-Inspector of Police of the said station in time. On 6-9-1993, the petitioner/husband sent a letter by registered post to the Court, informing his inability to attend the Court on 10-9-1993, since he was advised by the Doctor, not to travel. He further requested in the said letter, to transfer the case from the Court at Srivilliputhur to the Court at Kancheepuram, enabling him to appear before the said Court, nearer to his residence. The learned Judicial Magistrate on receiving the said letter, on 10-9-1993, issued a fresh notice again and posted the matter on 8-10-1993. There was no response from the petitioner/husband even on 8-10-1993, and again a fresh notice was ordered by posting the matter to 12-11-1993, and thereafter to 19-11-1993. Ultimately, on 19-11-1993, since the petitioner/husband was not present, he was set ex parte, and the respondent/wife was examined as P.W. 1, and through her Exs. P. 1 to P 3 were marked. The case was posted for orders on 23-11-1993. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on 23-11-1993, passed an order, awarding maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month, with effect from the date of presentation of the petition, viz. 14-7-1993.
(v) On 15-12-1993, the respondent/wife filed an execution petition under Section 128, Cr.P.C., in Crl. M.P. No. 4094 of 1992, wherein notice was ordered by the Magistrate to the petitioner/husband asking him to appear on 7-1-1994. On that date also, the petitioner/husband did not appear. Again fresh notice was ordered, by posting the case on 4-2-1994. This time, the Magistrate, on the non-appearance of the petitioner/husband issued bailable warrant and posted the matter to 11-3-1994. On 11-3-1994, fresh warrant was issued, and the matter was posted on 15-4-1994. On 15-4-1994, the warrants were returned. So, the matter was posted on 6-5-1994 and again on 10-6-1994. On 10-6-1994, fresh notice was sent, asking the petitioner to appear on 8-7-1994. From 8-7-1994, the matter was adjourned to 22-7-1994. Since the respondent was not present on 22-7-1994, the order of attachment of salary through the Superintendent of police was passed against the petitioner/husband. The matter was adjourned to 16-9-1994 and then to 7-10-1994. In the mean time, on 13-9-1994, the Court received a cheque sent by the Superintendent of Police, by attaching the salary of the petitioner/husband to the extent of Rs. 400/- per month.
(vi) On 7-10-1994, the petitioner/husband appeared before the learned Magistrate, and filed an application in Crl. M.P. No. 3124 of 1994, with a prayer to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance dated 23-11-1993, after condoning the delay. He further prayed in the same application, to stay the operation of the order of attachment of salary, pending disposal of the said criminal miscellaneous petition. On this petition, enquiry was conducted. Both parties were heard. In the enquiry, the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1, and marked Ex. P. 1, the summon issued by the Court to him, Ex. P. 2, the copy registered letter dated 6-9-1993 sent by him to the Court, Ex. P3-postal receipt Ex. P4-acknowledgment of the Magistrate dated 10-9-1993, Ex. P5-out-patient card showing that he was admitted in the Chengalpattu Government Hospital, for his paralytic attack on 25-9-92, Ex. P. 6-copy of notice received by him in the execution petition in Crl. M. P. No. 4094 of 1993, on 12-1-1994, Ex. P. 7-copy of letter dated 30-1-1994, send by him to the Court expressing his inability to appear before the Court, Ex. P8-postal receipt for Ex. P7, Ex. P9-postal acknowledgment of the Magistrate and Ex. P. 10-the Doctor certificate. In his evidence, he admitted, that the received the notices, both the M.C. No. 7 of 1993, before the ex parte order of maintenance and in Crl. M.P. No. 4094 of 1994, the execution petition, after the ex parte order. But, he contended that he came to know of the ex parte order, only on 30-8-1994, when his salary was attached.
(vii) However, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said petition, holding that there was no good cause shown for his non-appearance, on the date on which he was set ex parte, and that the fact that the petitioner/husband sent two registered letters one on 6-9-1993, before passing the ex parte order and another on 30-1-1994, after passing of the ex parte order, would show, that he knows the progress of the case, at each and every stage, and his contention that he came to know about the ex parte order only on 30-8-1994, after his salary was attached could not be true. This order of dismissal refusing to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance, in Crl. M.P. No. 3124 of 1994, dated 13-2-1995, is challenged in this revision.
3. The interesting point that has been raised in this revision by the learned counsel for the petitioner is this :-
"The learned Judicial Magistrate ought not to have recorded the (ex parte) evidence of the wife/respondent herein on 19-11-1993 and passed ex parte order on 23-11-1993, in the absence of the petitioner/husband, especially when Section 126(2), Cr.P.C., contemplates that all evidence in maintenance proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, and once the Magistrate finds that the husband did not appear after service of summons, he ought to have passed an order on 10-9-1993 itself, and the act of the learned Magistrate adjourning the matter to number of further hearings and taking evidence of the wife on 19-11-1993 and passing the ex parte order on 23-11-1993 in the absence of the husband/petitioner is not permissible, and the order is illegal and liable co be set aside."
4. Interestingly, this point has neither been raised before the Court below in the application in Crl. M.P. No. 3124 of 1994 to set aside the ex parte order, nor mentioned in the grounds of revision. The explanation for his non-appearance given before the Court below is that he did not know about the dates of hearing and he came to know about the proceedings only on the date of attachment of salary. As correctly observed by learned Judicial Magistrate, this explanation is utterly false, in view of the fact that the petitioner himself admits that he wrote a letter to the Court on 6-9-1993, informing his inability to attend the Court, and on 30-1-1994 also while receiving the notice on the execution petition, he intimated to the Court that he could not be able to appear before the Court.
5. The ground urged in the memorandum of grounds of revision filed in this Court is that the Magistrate failed to consider that the petitioner/husband married one Gowri, in the year 1976 itself, and during the subsistence of that marriage, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was alleged to be performed in the year 1980. But, to substantiate this ground, there is no material whatsoever, produced before the Court below. As admittedly, the ex parte order of maintenance was passed in the absence of the petitioner/husband. Now, this Court is called upon to decide about a new ground, stated in the earlier paragraph.
6. However, since it is a question of law, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to argue on this point. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 126. Cr.P.C., mandates that all evidence in the maintenance proceedings initiated by the wife shall be taken only in the presence of her husband, against whom the maintenance was claimed, and when his personal appearance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and that the said evidence shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons cases. In order to substantiate this submission, learned counsel cited the following decisions :-
(i) , (Nand Lal Misra v. Kanhaiya Lal Misra);
(ii) 1980 Crl LJ 601 (Arunkumar Surajmal Jain v. Chandanbhai Rupchandsa Jain, Bombay High Court);
(iii) 1991 Mad LW (Crl) 113 (A. Simon v. Venkatammal);
(iv) 1996 Crl LJ 1433 (Rajendra Pal v. Anjali Singh, Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court);
(v) (State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani);
vi) 1996 Crl LJ 1896, (Loganathan v. Dhanalakshmi).
7. In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, , the Supreme Court deals with a case, where the State filed an appeal against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court, refusing to condone the delay of 109 days in filling the letters patent appeal. Allowing this appeal the apex Court held that "every day's delay must be explained,' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and the doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner". It is also observed in the said decision that "the only condition is that the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." This decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, because the question involved in this case is whether sufficient cause was shown to the Court below for his non-appearance on the date, when he was set ex parte. However, the following observation made in the decision referred to supra, would be quite relevant to make the order of Court below sustainable in law :-
"What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules ...... It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a devise to cover an ulterior purpose." In the light of this observation, I am not able to find out any infirmity in the order of learned judicial Magistrate, who held that the husband, even though knew about the pendency of the proceedings want only did not appear right from the beginning.
8. The facts of the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Loganathan In Re., 1996 Crl LJ 1896, Madras High Court, also stand in a different footing. In that case, wife and husband were appearing in the maintenance proceedings for some hearings. But on the last few hearing, the husband did not appear. In that fact situation, this Court remanded the matter to give further opportunity to the husband. This does not relate to the question of recording ex parte evidence the absence of the husband. Moreover, in the instant case, the husband never appeared before the Court below, even for one hearing.
9. In the decision reported in 1996 Crl LJ 1433, the facts remaining are that the respondent/husband was originally set ex parte and an order of maintenance was passed, and that thereafter he field an application for setting aside the ex parte order, and the same was set aside, and again in the further enquiry, he was not present, and so again he/was set ex parte and order of maintenance passed. That order was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court correctly dismissed the revision, holding that the husband remained absent on successive dates, without assigning any reason, and holding that the rejection of the application for setting aside the ex parte order was proper. This decision would not in any way help the case of the petitioner/husband, whereas this would substantiate the case of the wife, that ex parte order passed in the case on hand is valid in law.
10. In Simon In Re., 1991 Mad LW (Crl) 113, Padmini Jesudurai, J. of this Court referred about proviso to Section 126(2), Cr.P.C., while confirming the ex parte order of maintenance, which was passed after recording the ex parte evidence, in the absence of the respondent/husband. This decision is also not in favour of the proposition put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. The decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Lal Misra In Re, deals with the case of preliminary enquiry, after the maintenance petition on file, before issuing notice under Section 488 (Old Code-Sec. 125 new Code). The apex Court held in that decision, quoting the Section that the Judicial Magistrate has followed the procedure which is not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, by conducting preliminary enquiry. It has also been observed that the evidence must be recorded only after the service of notice, and on appearance of the respondent, as per Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. and not before that. This decision also would not be relevant to this case, because it does not refer to proviso to Section 126(2) of the Code.
12. In the case decided by Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Arunkumar Surajmal Jain In Re., 1980 Crl LJ 601, counsel for the respondent/husband asked for adjournment, while the respondent was not present. The Court refused adjournment. The wife and other witnesses were examined. Counsel for the respondent participated in the proceedings, and cross-examined them. Finally, the maintenance order was passed. The question raised before the Bombay High Court, was that evidence must be recorded only in the presence of the respondent/husband and in his absence, only after dispensing with his presence, the Magistrate could record evidence adduced on the side of the wife, in the presence of the pleader for for the respondent. The High Court, in that case held, that though the respondent/husband was not present, the counsel appearing for him has participated and cross-examined the witnesses, and so, there was nothing wrong in recording the evidence in the presence of the counsel, under section 126(2), Cr.P.C., even though there was no separate order for dispensing with the appearance of the respondent/husband. This decision also has not referred to about the proviso to Section 126(2), Cr.P.C.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision in Parthasarathy v. Banumathy, 1988 Mad LW (Crl) 333, wherein this Court has dealt with the procedure relating to the mode of service of notice to the respondents. But, none of the decisions cited supra by both counsel would not answer the present issue raised in this revision.
14. Before dealing with this question, I am constrained to refer about some factual aspects. The petitioner is working as a Police Constable, attached to Soonamedu Police Station, of Chengai M.G.R. District. Admittedly, he received notice in M.C. No. 7 of 1993, from the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Srivilliputhur, asking him to appear on 10-9-1993. On 6-9-1993, he sent a registered letter, as admitted by him, to the Magistrate, that he would not be able to appear on 10-9-1993, since he was medically advised by the Doctor, not to travel. This letter was received by the Court on 10-9-1993, and the matter was adjourned periodically to various dates. Since there was no representation either in person or through counsel, for the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate examined the wife, in order words, recorded the statement of the wife, and passed an ex parte order. Similarly, even after passing of the ex parte order dated 23-11-1993, and on filing of an application by the wife for execution under Section 128, Cr.P.C. the petitioner-husband on receipt of Court notice sent another registered letter dated 30-1-1994, to the Court, reiterating the same reasons and requested the Magistrate, to transfer the case from his file to the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram.
15. The petitioner a public servant, working as a Police Constable must be conversant with the legal matters. He had been served with the notice even for the hearing on 10-9-1993. He was sent ex parte two months thereafter, i.e. on 23-11-1993. In the mean time, the petitioner should have taken steps either to get adjournment through counsel, or to appear in Court in time. This was not done. Worst part of it is, even after the ex parte order passed in November 1993, he sent another registered letter on 30-1-1994, on receipt of the notice in the execution petition. This shows, not only the wilful attitude of the petitioner in neglecting the Court, but also the impertinent act of the petitioner, in having the audacity to write registered letters to the Court, asking the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Srivilliputhur, to transfer the case from his file to the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram, Chengai M.G.R. District.
16. The procedure contemplated in Law is that as soon as the notices are received by the respondent, he should appear before the Court, either in person or through counsel to contest the case. In this case, the petitioner herein, a Police Constable simply wrote a letter informing about his illness and kept quiet. If really the petitioner/husband needs a transfer of the case from one District to another, on valid reasons, he could have approached this Court, with appropriate application. Without following these procedures, the petitioner sent communication through letters to the Court one after another, stating the same reason. This reflects not only the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner, but also shows that he has no regard for Law or Courts.
17. Further more, in the execution petition, when the respondent was absent, for number of hearings, warrant was issued against him, directing the concerned police to execute the same and produce the respondent before Court. But for obvious reasons, the warrants were returned unexecuted, though the petitioner herein was working as Police Constable in the same station. Unfortunately, the learned Judicial Magistrate also, after getting the warrants returned on 15-4-1994, has simply adjourned the matter, and issued fresh notice, without pursuing the warrants already issued, further. It is also not clear from the records, as to why the warrants have not been executed by the concerned police, and why the learned Judicial Magistrate, did not take further action on that.
18. While the petitioner was examined during the enquiry on the petition to set aside the ex parte order he would state that he was on medical leave for ten months from 1-1-1992 to 31-12-1992, and did not attend to his work in that period. In order to verify this fact, the learned Judicial Magistrate has called for a report from the Superintendent of Police as to whether the petitioner/husband was on medical leave from 1-1-1992 to 30-12-1992, as claimed by him. The Superintendent of Police, after verification of records sent his report dated 29-12-1994, stating that the petitioner was on medical leave only in between 24-2-1992 and 10-6-1992. This would show, that he was on duty on other dates. As such, this part of the evidence adduced by the petitioner/husband before the Court below is false. If he was on medical leave only from 24-2-1992 to 10-6-1992, there was no reason as to why the warrant issued on 4-2-1994 was returned unexecuted by the concerned police station, on 15-4-1994, without complying the orders of the Court. This requires probe.
19. Coming to the relevant question raised in this revision, perusal of Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would become essential. Section 126 of the Code provides thus :-
"(1) .......
(2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases :
Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper."
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner, only on the basis of the wordings in Section 126(2), Cr.P.C., contends that the Magistrate should not have recorded evidence of the wife, in the absence of the husband, the petitioner herein. In my view this lacks substance. In view of the proviso to the said section, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit. The ex parte order of maintenance dated 23-11-1993 was not passed under section 126(2), Cr.P.C., but the same was passed, under the proviso to Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. The proviso contemplates two contingencies. The first being, the ex parte order of maintenance could be passed, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the respondent is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, he may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte. The second being, the Magistrate, if satisfied, on an application made within three months from the date of the ex parte order, filed by the respondent, that there is a good cause for his non-appearance, on the date on which he was set ex parte, could set aside the order.
21. In the instant case, the records would reveal, that despite service of notice, the respondent neglected to attend the Court from 10-9-1993 onwards, till 19-11-1993, the date on which he was set ex parte. If the ex parte order was passed on 10-9-1993 itself, the first date of absence, then it might not be possible for the Magistrate to hold that the respondent wilfully neglected to attend the Court. That was the reason, why the matter was periodically adjourned, in order to facilitate the respondent to appear even on the future hearings. His non appearance on further hearings would show that he was wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. So, the counsel cannot argue that the Magistrate ought to have passed the ex parte order, on the first date itself.
22. But the point raised in this case is whether the Magistrate could record the ex parte evidence of the wife, even after the Magistrate coming to the conclusion that the husband wilfully neglected to attend the Court, despite the service of notice. A reading of the above said proviso, as referred to supra, would make it apparently clear, that the ex parte order of maintenance should be passed only after recording the evidence of the wife, in order to determine the prima facie case, whether she is entitled to award of maintenance, and if so, what is the quantum to be fixed. These questions have to be necessarily decided, only after hearing the wife, by putting her into box, and marking documents, if any, through her. The wordings, found in the proviso "the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte", would mean, recording the statement of the wife and receiving the documents, if any, from her, and then to determine about the entitlement of the wife for maintenance, and the quantum. Therefore, it is futile to contend that the Magistrate ought not to have recorded the statement from her, in the absence of her husband, the petitioner herein, as it violates the mandate as found in Section 126(2), Cr.P.C.
23. No doubt, it is true, that the evidence must be recorded only in the presence of other party, to enable him for cross-examination. The evidence under section 126(2) means, the evidence tested by cross-examination by the other side in a maintenance case. But the statement recorded by the Magistrate, ex parte in the absence of the respondent under proviso to Section 126(2), Cr.P.C., could not be construed to mean the evidence as contemplated in Section 126(2) of the Code. Moreover, once final order is passed, on the basis of the evidence under Section 126(2), Cr.P.C., by the Magistrate, it could not be set aside by the same Magistrate. The final order has to be challenged and reviewed only before the higher forum. But, in the instant case, the order of the Magistrate has been passed, based on the statement recorded from the wife, under the proviso to Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. This could be set aside by the very same Magristrate, on the application filed by the respondent, within three months from the date of order. Such being the position, we cannot equate the word "evidence" as contemplated in section 126(2), Cr.P.C., to the "recording of statement" from the party, in order to determine the case ex parte, as found in proviso to Section 126(2), Cr.P.C.
24. In Gayithri v. Ramesh, 1993 (2) DMC 197, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, deals with the similar question. In that case, the respondent/husband remained absent, after service of notice. Thereafter he was set ex parte. The case was posted for ex parte evidence. The petitioner in that case filed an affidavit, swearing to the several circumstances, pleaded for claiming maintenance. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion, without recording evidence that no case has been made out for grant of maintenance, and dismissed the petition. Against this order of the Fimily Court, an appeal was preferred before the Karnataka High Court. The relevant observation of the Division Bench, is as follows :-
"In a proceeding under section 125 of the Code, the evidence shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons case. There is no provision in the Code enabling a Magistrate to take affidavit evidence in a summons case. Therefore, the procedure of taking an affidavit in a summons case is completely unknown to the provisions of the Code and the evidence has to be recorded as prescribed by Section 274 of the Code, which relates to record in summons cases and inquiries. If the party against whom the Court for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is absent, the Court cannot straightaway place the said person ex parte and proceed as in a civil matter. It must come to a conclusion that, person is wilfully avoiding service or wad wilfully neglecting to attend the Court and then only he could proceed and determine the case ex parte as per proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Section 126 of the Code. The learned Judge of the Family Court has not recorded any finding that the respondent was wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge of the Family Court in merely placing the respondent ex parte and calling upon the petitioner to file an affidavit is highly illegal and therefore, the order has to be set aside solely on that ground and in that view of the matter there is no necessity to enter into any kind of discussion in relation to the merits of the case put forward by the appellant. Therefore, it is clear that the order passed by the Family Court should be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to it with a direction to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 126 of the Code, and thereafter proceed to dispose of the case according to law."
This observation would be relevant to show that the Magistrate cannot merely place the respondent/husband ex parte, and pass an order on the basis of the petition or affidavit filed by the petitioner/wife. Therefore, the Magistrate is correct in following the procedure of recording the evidence of P.W. 1, the wife in this case and marking Exs. P. 1 to P. 3 through her, in order to determine the case ex parte, as per the provision of Section 274, Cr.P.C.
25. There is yet another factor to be taken note of in this case. The ex parte order was passed on 23-11-1993. The order refusing to set aside the ex parte order was passed on 13-2-1995. The present revision is only against the order of the learned judicial Magistrate, dated 13-2-1995, refusing to set aside the ex parte order, since there was no sufficient reason shown for his non-appearance, resulting to the ex parte order. But the present question raised in this revision is only relatable to the ex parte order dated 23-11-1993, though in this revision, this Court would be called upon to decide the legality or propriety and correctness of the order of refusal to set aside the ex parte order. So, raising such an issue, while not questioning the order dated 23-11-1993, in this revision could not also be permissible under law, since the period of limitation to file a revision against the ex parte order dated 23-11-1993 has expired long back. However, this Court took this as an opportunity to decide about this controversy raised only at the time of arguments advanced in this case.
26. In view of the above circumstances, none of the contentions raised in the grounds of revision as well as in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, has no legal basis, and the same are liable to be rejected, as they lack subatance.
27. In the result, the revision is dismissed.
28. Revision dismissed.