ROOP LAL BHALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Both these petitions are interlinked and arise from the same set of facts and proceedings and are being decided together.

(2.) . Petitioners of Crl. R. 311/2003 are challenging the order dated 7.4.2003 whereby Sub Divisional Magistrate (in short "S.D.M.") desealed the property in question pursuant to the order dated 14.1.2003 passed by this court staying the operation of the order dated 28.12.2002 passed by the S.D.M whereby the earlier order dated 8.4.2002 passed by the earlier S.D.M ordering the sealing of the suit property by invoking the provisions of Section 146 Cr.P.C. was refused and the property was ordered to be desealed. It was on the application of the petitioners of Crl. M (M) 137/2003 that the order of the sealing of the property in question was passed on 8.4.2002.

(3.) . These petitioners had also filed a civil suit for declaration challenging the genuineness of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners of Crl. R. 311/2003. In the said suit relief for permanent injunction was also sought against these petitioners from selling, transferring, alienating, letting out or creating any third party interest. As is apparent the aforesaid suit impliedly admitted the possession of these petitioners over the suit property though took the plea that by false representation and defrauding, the property was sold to these petitioners. In the said suit, status quo order as to the possession of the properties was passed by this court. It was pursuant to this order that the petitioners of Crl. M (M) 137/2003 approached the SDM for sealing the. suit property. Their applications were allowed and the property was sealed by order dated 8.4.2002.