PADAM RAVINDER JEET SINGH Vs. JAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Leave granted.

(2.) A large tract of land became the subject matter of a proceeding under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and on attachment became custody legis. The learned magistrate found possession in favour of the respondents, whereupon the appellant approached the Sessions Judge under S. 397 of the Code of criminal Procedure to have the orderrevived. The Session Judge did not finally dispose of the revision but remitted the matter to the original forum. Thereupon the respondent filed a revision petition before the High court. The High court came to hold that the order remitting the proceeding was not correct. Ordinarily in such a situation the Sessions Judge has to hear the revision again.

(3.) We would not have entertained a matter of this type because the sessions Judge was yet to deal with the revision and whatever final order was passed by him was subject to decision in a suit. The litigation between the parties appears to be continuing over two decades and without any appropriate justification. Several courts civil, criminal and revenue are being called upon to look into different facets of the litigation. At the moment there is proceeding pending in the High court at Allahabad and several revenue proceedings have been initiated which have really no justifiable base. In a dispute between the parties it has been finally decided that upto June, 1960 the relationship between them was that of Principal and Agent, the respondents having been inducted into the property to manage the same as agent. The dues of the appellant under the decree of the High court have been paid in 1984. After 1960, the respondents started claiming tenancy. Though there have been several miscellaneous proceedings where the claim of tenancy has been raised, yet there 'has been no clear adjudication of tenancy as provided by law. The respondents instituted some time after a suit under S. 6 of the Specific Relief act on the allegation that they have been dispossessed by the appellant. During the pendency of this suit, on the basis that they had recovered possession by force, they did not want to continue the suit. The trial court did not accept the prayer and dismissed the suit on the ground that they were not entitled to claim relief under S. 6 of the Act. Subsequently dispute arose as to possession of the property leading to apprehension of the peace in the locality which led to initiation of proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code out of which this appeal arises. It is well established in law that criminal courts have to honor decisions rendered by civil courts and on that principle, in view of the two decisions of the civil courts, possession of the on the basis of title and dismissal of their claim of restoration of possession should have been upheld.