MATHAI Vs. NINAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings arise out of the dispute between a vendor and a vendee of immovable properties. The vendee is the revision petitioner against whom proceedings have been taken by the subordinate Magistrate under S. 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The point on which there is and can be any dispute relates to the identity and possession of the land comprised in the deed. This being a dispute relating to land should naturally form the subject of an enquiry by the Magistrate under S. 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That being the case the only matter for consideration is whether there are circumstances which justify proceedings under S. 103.

(2.) THE simple facts of the case have been complicated by certain proceedings of this court and the subordinate court. THE vendor brought a suit in the Pathanamthitta Munsiff's Court (O.S. No. 498 of 1120) for a declaration that the disputed land was not comprised in the sale deed and for a perpetual injunction restraining the vendee from entering on such land. THE court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the vendee from entering on such land. THE Magistrate who was moved in the matter by the vendee initiated proceedings under S. 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, attached the property and appointed a receiver. This was done in spite of the issue of the order of injunction restraining the vendee from entering on the land. Meantime the order of injunction issued by the first court was cancelled by the District Court on appeal. In revision by the vendor (Civil Revision Petition No. 631 of 1121) this Court cancelled the lower appellate court's order and restored the injunction order issued by the trial court. This Court also directed suspension of the proceedings taken by the Magistrate under S. 143 which it thought was passed either in ignorance of the Civil Court's order of injunction or in defiance of it. It cannot be deemed that, if there was a proper order of injunction issued by the civil court restraining the defendant from entering on the land, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S. 143 as his duty was to enforce the Civil Court's order and not to act in derogation of it. I therefore feel no doubt that, if the order of injunction against the defendant were proper, the proceedings under S. 143 of the code of Criminal Procedure were improper. It is equally clear that, if the order of injunction were to stand and the vendee in spite of it tries to molest the vendor and threatens to do acts which involve breaches of the peace, the appropriate action will be under S. 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) CRIMINAL Revision Petition No. 240 of 1124 is dismissed but I would direct the District Court to dispose of the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 41 of 1124 on its file. CRIMINAL Revision Petition No. 346 of 1124 has also to be dismissed as the order of transfer is not for resuming proceeding, but only for keeping custody of the records so that it may, as the proper court having territorial jurisdiction at present, take up the case for enquiry if the case is revived as a result of any order passed by the High Court. That has not happened so far, and the apprehensions of the revision petitioner being unfounded the revision petition filed by him, CRIMINAL Revision Petition No. 240 of 1124, is dismissed.