Criminal revision application challenging an order refusing to sit over a previous stay order. The single-judge High Court held the impugned order did not warrant interference under Section 362 CrPC and disposed of the application. The stay order was vacated.
Revisional application disregarded; order of stay vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BP Sl.22 Court No.236
Mamtaj Begam Vs. Abul Kalam Azad & Anr.
Mr. B.K. Roy Ms. Sima Biswas ..for the State
This revisional application challenges the order dated 9th December, 2010 passed by the learned 2nd Court of Judicial Magistrate, Katwa.
None is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I do not find any reason to adjourn this case suo motu, rather I am inclined to dispose of the application on merit based on materials available with the record.
The impugned order was passed in Misc. Execution Case No. 18 of 2009 for modification of the order dated 7th June, 2004 passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc. Case No. 9 of 1993. By the order dated 7th June, 2004, learned Trial court was pleased to pass an order of stay in respect of Misc. Execution Proceedings arising out of Misc. Case No. 104 of 1985 subject to payment of 50% of the arrear of maintenance in disposal of Misc. Case No. 9 of 1993 which was filed for modification of maintenance
2
allowance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Learned Trial Court refused to sit over the order passed by it.
In my view, the impugned order does not warrant any interference inasmuch as court cannot sit over the order passed by the court itself in view of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisional application is bereft of merit and is disposed of.
The order of stay, if any, stands vacated.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can interfere with its own order refusing to sit over a previous order under Section 362 CrPC.
Whether the revisional application against the impugned order is tenable in law.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mamtaj Begam
Abul Kalam Azad
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
