REV SOLMON DAVID Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In proceedings under section 145 of Crimial P.C. the concerned SDM in the impugned order dated 18th October,2018 has directed that the possession of the subject premises i.e 19 Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi be handed to second respondent while holding as under:-

(2.) The challenge to the impugned order by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was on the ground that the arguments were heard by SDM-Sh.Vivek H.P. on 14th April, 2018 but the impugned order has been passed by another SDM-Sh.B.K Jha on 18th Oct., 2018. It was pointed out that in the impugned order, it is clearly recorded that the author of the impugned order had heard arguments. It was submitted that this is factually incorrect because SDM-Sh.B.K. Jha, who has passed the impugned order, had never heard the arguments, as it is so reflected from the order-sheets of the case before the concerned SDM. So, it was submitted that the impugned order suffers from utter non- application of mind and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's judgment in Rasiklal Manikchnd Dhariwal & Anr. Vs. M.S.S Food Products, 2012 2 SCC 196.

(3.) On merits, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that the stand of respondent regarding his purchasing the property in question is contradictory. Attention of this Court had been drawn to the evidence of the Investigating Officer to submit that it does not stand established that the possession of the property in question was with the respondent. It is submitted that the learned SDM committed an error in jumping to the conclusion that the possession of the property was with respondent and the title aspect is not required to be gone into as it is for the civil courts to determine the title.