JAS RAM Vs. MOHAN CHANDRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisions have been filed against the judgment dated 26 -06 -1996, passed by Sri M.M. Kulsresth, the then, Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, allowing the above Criminal Revisions and quashing the proceedings Under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and directing to continue attachment of the disputed property till the competent court determines the rights of the parties with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof.

(2.) Brief fact as emerges to this case are that the proceedings Under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the disputed plot started on the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Champawat dated 18 -12 -1987. It was reported therein that on 14/15 -11 -1987, the Respondents, Mohan Chandra and Govind Chandra dispossessed the revisionist - Jas Ram from the land in dispute and thereafter the S.D.M. passed the preliminary order on 07 -01 -1988 and proceeded with the case and he finally decided the matter and it was found that the present revisionists were in possession over the disputed property. The said order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and remanded the said matter to the trial court by directing to the court to give the clear cut findings regarding the possession of the present revisionists as has been provided under the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter the S.D.M. separated the three cases and passed a fresh preliminary order on 11 -03 -1991 and thereafter the parties adduced the evidence. The S.D.M. also directed the matter in favour of the revisionists and the Respondents feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge while disposing of the revisions observed that the learned Magistrate had failed to record the clearcut findings with regard to the possession over the disputed plot. It was further observed that the matter is lingering since 1987 to till date. The learned Sessions Judge found it appropriate without giving any finding with the apprehension of breach of peace at the spot and directed that the property continued to be remained attached and the parties were directed to move to the competent court.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred.