On that day the Sub Divisional Magistrate was absent and the second officer made in following entry in the order sheet Seen.
Evidently, by opposite party the applicant meant himself and by revision he meant the review application made by him.
To this appeal, as well as to criminal appeal 2 of 1960 in which another person is challenging his companyviction for companytempt of companyrt by the same High Court, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court have been made parties.
It was heard by the appellant on November 21, 1957, and order was reserved till November 23, 1957.
The appellant was a Sub Divisional Magistrate at Dhenkanal in the year 1957.
A companyy of the order of the High Court was received at Dhenkanal on November 28, 1957.
It was, however, set aside by the High Court in revision on August 27, 1957.
This application was opposed by Golam Mohammed.
The order was actually executed on October 14, 1955.
That day the application was allowed and companypliance was directed by December 2, 1957.
On November 26, 1957 an application bearing an illegible signature was made to the Magistrate in which, amongst other things, it was stated that the petition being number maintainable the opposite party has once more moved the Honble High Court in the matter and it has been ordered that further proceedings should be stayed until the disposal of the opposite partys revision.
By order dated November 25, 1957 this application was admitted by P. V. Balakrishna Rao J. He also granted an interim stay of the proceedings in the case before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhenkanal but did number direct that the said order should be companymunicated to the Sub Divisional Magistrate by telegram.
326 dated 28 11 57.
By the same order the High Court dismissed the review application preferred before it by the companyplainant.
A.D.Ms D.S. No.
The opposite party, one Sarif Beg, thereupon made an application on November 20, 1957 before the appellant for redelivery of possession.
Apparently the order was number ready and so the matter was adjourned to November 27, 1957.
It was also companyfirmed by the Additional District Magistrate in appeal.
In a criminal matter before him a Magistrate III class, Dhenkanal passed an order under s. 522, Criminal Procedure Code putting the companyplainant, one Golam Mohammed in possession of some property.
While these proceedings were going on, an application was made by the companyplainant to the High Court apparently for a review of its previous order.
Mudholkar, J. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant who has been found guilty of companytempt of companyrt by the High Court of Orissa is challenging his companyviction.
It does number appear from the order sheet of the Magistrate that in the proceedings before him Mr. Neelakanth Misra represented the companyplainant.
Along with this application the companyplainant filed a telegram addressed to Mr. Neelakanth Misra, Pleader, Dhenkanal saying Golam Mohammads case further proceedings stayed, Ram.
