KALIAMURTHY Vs. NSURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this criminal revision case as the order dated 7. 7. 1995 passed by the Executive and Divisional Magistrate and Sub collector, Cuddalore in M. C. No. 1 of 1995 under Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure code proceedings for want of its legality and propriety.

(2.) THE five respondents before the Court below, the B party are the revision petitioners herein, THEy are challenging the above order which resulted emerged from a petition filed under Sec. 145 of the Criminal procedure Code by the respondent herein, who is the A party by name tmt. THEnsuvai before the Court below in respect of the landed property to the extent of 1. 40 hectares situate in R. S. No. 246, are a poromboke of Maligaimedu madura, Panruti Taluk against the revision petitioners herein alleging that they had the paddy crops and cut carried it away and are attempting to cut the sugarcane crops raised by her, disputing the claim of the respondent for possession and title. This petition was taken on file and accordingly, the petitioners were served with notice and called upon to appear and show cause their case before the Court, by passing the preliminary order by the Court below. On their appearance, the revision petitioner herein, who are the respondents had filed their written objections stating inter alia that the revision petitioner is not in possession of the disputed property at any point of time and that they have been in possession of the same for the last fourteen years by paying the penal tax to the Government and that the father-in-law of the respondent, by name Kumaraswami tried to disturb their possession and they filed civil suits in O. S. Nos. 225 to 229 of 1992 before the District Munsif's Court, Panruti for the relief of possessory title and permanent injunction and got the decree on 23. 12. 1994 and that all the documents produced and relied on by the petitioner were considered and they were rejected. THE injunction order passed by the court below is still in force since 8. 4. 1992 onwards. However, the two civil suits, O. S. Nos. 27 and 103 of 1995 are pending on the file of the Sub Court cuddalore which were for the relief of injunction against the petitioner. THE petitioner has failed to get any interim order there and with a view to have a wrongful gain over the crops raised by the respondents, the proceedings under sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was initiated by the petitioner.

(3.) CONTRA to the above contention, it was argued on behalf of the respondent that the photostat copies of all the relevant documents were made available before the Court below even when the preliminary objections were raised and that only on the basis of the said documents, the court below has passed the order impugned in this revision. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the Court below is well justified in passing the said order. Reliance was also placed by Mrs. Hema Sampath in support of her contentions on the decision reported in Joseph Michael v. K. Ramachandran, (1992)1 L. W. 198 in particular the following observation made by this Court,' The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter in still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the recorded to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error in and that is the only way to have the record corrected.' ; The above view was subscribed by me on the basis of the decision is somasundaram v. Subramanian, A. I. R. 1926 P. C. 136 rendered by Lord Atkinson. In the decision cited supra, almost similar contentions were raised. The stand now taken by the respondent herein is that the contentions now raised in by the revision petitioners were considered in the abovesaid decision and they were all rejected and that therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to get the relief as sought for by them in the present revision petition.