Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)Kasinath Mohapatra vs Annapurna Panda @ Mohapatra on 14 February, 1989
Since the order is available to be scrutinised in revisional jurisdiction of this Court, it is necessary to be a speaking one so as to disclose the mind of the learned Magistrate to enable the High Court, while in seisin of the case, to find out the justifiability of the order. Admittedly, as the order of the learned Magistrate extracted above would show, no such satisfaction was recorded. The question has been dealt with by several decisions of this Court and it has been held that in the absence of recording by the Magistrate indicating that the person concerned was wilfully avoiding service or was wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate would have no jurisdiction to proceed ex parte. Reference may be made to 1985 (II) OLR 435, 60(1985) CLT 433(Bharat @ Kathia Mallik v. Niasi Mallik), 1988 (I) OLR 31, 65 (1988) CLT 146 (Biswanath Kabi v. Susama Dei) and 1989 (I) OLR 307, 67 (1939) CLT 644 (Kasinath Mohapatra v. Arnapurna Panda @ Mohapatra). It is as such a matter of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to enable him to proceed ex parte that he must record his satisfaction for proceeding ex parte.
Balan Nair vs Bhavani Amma Valsalamma And Ors. on 17 November, 1986
3. It is however the submission of Mr. Misra that even if such satisfaction is not expressly recorded in the order, yet if such satisfaction can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances or the conduct of the person who had been set ex parte, the mere non-recording of the satisfaction in the order should not vitiate the proceeding and should be upheld. Reliance has been placed by him in the matter on 1987 Cr.L.J. 399 (Balan Nair v. Bhavani Amma Valsalamma and Ors.), a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court. In para 13 of the judgment their Lordships declared in unmistakable terms that it is desirable for the Magistrate to pass a formal order recording the satisfaction and giving reasons for the satisfaction and that the more informed view is that a format order is desirable. It was further held that the absence of a formal order would not vitiate the order or the proceedings so long as the record evidences circumstances which show the existence of reasons to satisfy the Magistrate on this score and which imply such satisfaction.
Bharat @ Kathia Mallik vs Niasi Mallik on 10 September, 1985
Since the order is available to be scrutinised in revisional jurisdiction of this Court, it is necessary to be a speaking one so as to disclose the mind of the learned Magistrate to enable the High Court, while in seisin of the case, to find out the justifiability of the order. Admittedly, as the order of the learned Magistrate extracted above would show, no such satisfaction was recorded. The question has been dealt with by several decisions of this Court and it has been held that in the absence of recording by the Magistrate indicating that the person concerned was wilfully avoiding service or was wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate would have no jurisdiction to proceed ex parte. Reference may be made to 1985 (II) OLR 435, 60(1985) CLT 433(Bharat @ Kathia Mallik v. Niasi Mallik), 1988 (I) OLR 31, 65 (1988) CLT 146 (Biswanath Kabi v. Susama Dei) and 1989 (I) OLR 307, 67 (1939) CLT 644 (Kasinath Mohapatra v. Arnapurna Panda @ Mohapatra). It is as such a matter of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to enable him to proceed ex parte that he must record his satisfaction for proceeding ex parte.
1