SAMINATHAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUDUKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Petitioners are A party in M.C. No. 52 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer Pudukottai and the proceedings against the petitioners as well as B party were initiated under Section 145 Cr. P.C. with an allegation that there is a dispute in respect of building in T.S.N. No. 2763 situate at East Main Street. Near Brindavanam Pudukottal and that the said dispute is likely to result in breach of peace.

(2.) After the proceedings were initiated summons were issued by the learned Magistrate to both the parties to appear before him on 3-6-1996. Accordingly on 3-6-1996, both the parties appeared and sought time to me written statements on that date, C party also appeared and filed a petition with a prayer to implead them in the proceedings, which was allowed. The case was adjourned to 10-6-1996 on which date, a written statement of B party was filed. The matter was adjourned to 17-6-1996 and then to 1-7-1996. In between 17-6-1996 and 1-7-1996. A party med a petition in Cri. O.P. No. 4219 of 1996 before this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings in the said M.C. and alongwith that also med Cr1. M.P. No. 1884 of 1996 seeking stay of the proceedings. This Court though admitted Cr1. O.P. No. 4219 of 1996, ordered only notice on the stay petition. It is to be noted that between 17-6-1996 and 1-7-1996, A party did not me their written statement and hence, the matter was adjourned from 1-7-1996 to 8-7-1996.

(3.) In the meantime, B party also med a petition in Cr1. O.P. No. 4469 of 1996 with a prayer to direct the learned Magistrate to expedite the proceedings in the above M.C. Cr1. O.P. No. 4219 of 1996, which was admitted by this Court was posted for hearing on 23-7-1996. The fact that Cr1. O.P. No. 4219 of 1996 filed by A party had been posted for hearing on 23-7-1996, was intimated to the learned Magistrate by the Advocate by his letter dated 18-7-1996 and the same was received by the learned Magistrate on 22-7-1996 as could be seen from the endorsement made by him in the said letter. The learned Magistrate passed the present impugned order on 23-7-1996 holding that B party was in possession of the property and they are entitled for the said possession.