DALAPATHY SHETTY Vs. HONNE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order passed by the First Class Magistrate, Mandya, on 18-1-1971 in Crl. Mis. Case No. 57 of 1965 in proceedings nder S.145 CrPC. The petitioner is the first party while the respondents are the second party, before the learned Magistrate. A few facts necessary for a decision in this case may be briefly narrated as follows: On being satisfied that there was a dispute in regard to possession of maji survey Nos.139 and 131 of Madinahalli village, Maddur Taluk, and that such dispute was likely to cause breach of peace and public tranquillity, a preliminary order under S.145(1) CrPC., was passed on 15-2-1965. Thereafter written statements were filed and evidence by means of affidavits and documents in support of the respective cases of the parties was also produced. On 10-8-1965, the learned First Class Magistrate passed an order referring the matter to the Munsiff-Mandya, under Section 146(1) Criminal P.C. On receipt of the reference, the case was taken up on the file of the learned Munsiff in Misc. No.110/65 and the learned Munsiff on 22-12-1970 passed his order holding that Honnegowda, respondent-1 in this petition, was in actual possession of the lands on 15-2-1965, i.e., the date of the preliminary order and also within two months next from the date of the said preliminary order, and that the present petitioner was not in possession of the subject matter of dispute on the said dates. On receipt of this order passed by the learned Munsiff, the First Class Magistrate passed his order holding accordingly. It is this order that is now impugned in this petition.

(2.) A preliminary objection, contending that in view of the provisions of S.146(1-D) of CrPC., this petition is not maintainable, was raised. The learned Advocate Sri B.Tilak Hegde, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, fairly stated that S.146(1-D) of CrPC. lays down that no appeal shall lie from any finding of the Civil Court given on a reference under this section nor shall any review or revision of any such finding be allowed, and, therefore, it would be difficult to contend that in this petition the correctness of the order passed by the learned Munsiff at Mandya in Misc. Case No.110/1965 can be gone into.

(3.) It is apparent that the order passed by the First Class Magistrate holding the first member of the second party i.e., respondent-1 in possession of the subject matter of dispute in accordance with the finding recorded by the learned Munsiff in the matter before him on a reference by the First Class Magistrate under S.146(1) of the CrPC., cannot be gone into on merits as it would tantamount to exercising powers of revision against the order passed by the Munsiff himself. In the result, it will have to be held that this revision petition is not maintainable and, therefore, it is dismissed.