A G V SUBRAMANIA IYER Vs. PUDUMADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are respondents in M. C. T. P. No. 28 of 1959 on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, and they are referred to in these proceedings as the B party. The petition in the lower Court was one under Section 145, Cri. P C; it arose out of a dispute between the A and B parties in respect of some lands. There are eight items of lands as disclosed in the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cri. P. C. The extent of the lands in respect of which the dispute between the parties existed is also given in that order. The learned Executive First Class Magistrate was of the opinion that he could not himself decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the properties in dispute and he therefore referred the question to the District Munsif of Tenkasi, under Section 146 (1) Cri. P. C. to decide the question as to which of the parties was in possession of the three disputed lands, since there was no dispute as regards the other five items of properties. The learned District Munsif found that the A party was in possession of the whole extent of the survey numbers of the said three items and not merely the dispute portions in the three items.

(2.) IN pursuance of the said finding, the learned Executive First Class Magistrate passed the final order upholding the possession of the A party and directing the B party not to interfere with the same. Hence the B party has come forward with the present petition.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the respondents-A party relied on the decision in Mutha Sethurayar v. Lourduswami Odayar 1959 Mad. W. N. 367 : A. I. R. 1959 Mad. Ill which was followed in Rengammal v. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar 1959 Mad. W. N. 599 reported in the same volume : in support of his contention that the revision is not competent. But it is clear from the said decisions that the High Court can revise an order under Section 145 Cri. P. C even though reference had been made to the District Munsif under Section 146 (1) Cri. P. C. and that the only thing that the High Court in revision cannot go into Is the correctness or legality or otherwise of the findings of the Civil Court.