SARASWATHI Vs. THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case is preferred against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, passed under Sec. 145 of the criminal Procedure Code holding that' 'A' 'party is in possession of the land regarding which it is said that there is a dispute and directing the' 'B' 'party not to interfere with their possession.

(2.) MR. K. Sengottian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/' 'B' ' party contends that admittedly there is a civil proceeding pending between these two parties with regard to the land in question and that being the case, the Revenue Divisional officer ought not to have passed an order under Sec. 145 of the Code. It is seen from the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and from the records that both ' 'A' 'and' 'B' 'parties have filed suits against each other in respect of the same property and curiously both have obtained injunction orders against each other. The order of injunction obtained by' 'A' ' party is in o. S. No. 321 of 1989, dated 15. 7. 1989 which is marked as Ex. A-12, and the order of injunction obtained by' 'B' 'party is in O. S. No. 148 of 1989, dated 29. 3. 1989 which is marked as Ex. B-25. The Revenue Divisional Officer has noted about these injunction orders but he would say that there is no clear order as to who is in possession of the land in question and therefore he has to pass an order regarding possession. When the civil court is seized of the matter, that too whe n injunction orders have been passed, there cannot be a parallel proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code. The question regarding possession should have been left to be decided by the civil court in pending civil proceedings before it.