Allahabad High Court Expunges Its Remarks On Varanasi District Judge's Conduct Citing His Bona Fide Intent In Passing Orders

The Allahabad High Court on Monday expunged its remarks made against the District Judge of Varanasi, Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha in its order dated November 21, 2022, in view of his bona fide intent in passing an order (admitting a revision petition without condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act).

The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar expunged the observations made in the last fourth paragraph of his order dated 21st November 2022 regarding the conduct of District Judge,  Varanasi Dr. Vishvesha. The relevant paragraph (now expunged) is reproduced below:

"In the present case, the ordersheet reflects that the District Judge, Varanasi is in the habit of committing impropriety in discharge of his judicial function."

The case in brief

The matter relates to a defective revision (being barred by time) filed before the Court by Manish Viswas and 4 others. While the summons was still not served, Manish was directed to do pairvi. The record of the execution case was summoned by the District Judge on 12th October 2022, without allowing the Section 5 application filed under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay.

The respondent in revision (petitioner before the High Court/Asheem Kumar Das) was supplied with necessary copies, and he filed his objection to the same, in turn, an objection was filed by the revision-applicants to the objection filed by the respondent in revision and the matter was fixed on 17th November 2022 for further hearing in the matter.

While the matter was fixed on 17th November 2022, an urgent misc. stay application was filed on 1st November 2022 by the revision applicants.

It was averred in the stay application that the entire records of the execution court had not been sent to the court sitting in revision, and since the respondent landlord was threatening to dispossess them by use of police force, therefore, a request was made before the Court that the order i.e. Parvana Bedhakhali issued by the executing court may also be called for.

Upon this application, the court passed an order on the same date calling for Parvana Badhakhali and directed that the file be placed on the date fixed i.e. 17th November 2022.

Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner (respondent in the revision) moved to the HC with the instant plea challenging two orders of the District Judge passed on October 12 [summoning the record of the execution case instead of the record of the suit] and November 1, 2022 [recalling the file and further summoning the executing court's order].

Hearing the matter on November 21, the High Court ordered the District judge to present himself before the HC and submit his explanation.

Read more about the court's November 21 order here: Allahabad HC Orders Varanasi District Judge's Personal Presence For Committing Impropriety In Discharge Of Judicial Functions

District Judge's explanation

Pursuant to HC's order, the District judge appeared before the Court and submitted that his intention was only to ensure that SCC revision may not get frustrated only because of the pendency of Section 5 application under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and so in order to do justice, he summoned the parvana bedhakhali.

He further submitted that any irregularity in the procedure, if happened, by calling record and passing the interim order on 1st November 2022, was not to prejudice the interest of the petitioner but an act done in good faith and with the bona fide intention instead.

It was further explained by him that he passed a detailed order on 25th November 2022 sending back the record of the execution case as well as parvana bedhakhali.

Taking into account his explanation, at the outset, the Court found no reason to doubt his bona fides in the matter, however, the Court did observe that since as on 1st November 2022, the SCC revision was a defective one, therefore, the proper course for the District Judge ought to have been to dispose of Section 5 application first and then to proceed accordingly.

However, noting that the District Judge has sent back the file to the executing court and so also the order i.e. parvana bedhakhali, therefore, the Court noted that no grievance was left in the matter to be raised by the petitioner.

Consequently, honorably discharging the District Judge from notice, the Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, directed the court concerned to decide Section 5 application seeking condonation of delay in filing pending in SCC (Defective) Revision before it on 5th December, 2022 without granting any adjournment to either of the parties and thereafter will proceed accordingly as per the order passed.

Meanwhile, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner (respondent in revision) Ajay Kumar Singh gave an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will not pursue the execution case until 5th December, 2022.

In view of this, the petition was disposed of.

Case title - Asheem Kumar Das v. Manish Viswas And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10301 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 508

Click Here To Read/Download Order