RAM LACHHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against an order allowing the revision preferred by Shanker against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 23-9-1989.

(2.) By the aforesaid order dated 23-9-1989 the order passed by the predecessor of the present Magistrate dated 19-12-1988 was directed to be sent for compliance to the concerned police.

(3.) The order dated 19-12-1988 was for the attachment of the disputed house under Section 146(1) by the S.H.O., P.S. Salempur. The lower revisional Court, in my opinion, has not committed any error in remanding the case back to the concerned Court to deal with it in accordance with law. The orders dated 19-12-1988 and 23-9-1989 both were quashed by it. On the basis of a report submitted by P.S. Salempur dated 16-9-1988 to the effect that a dispute, giving rise to the apprehension of breach of peace, is going on between the rival parties in connection with the residential house and the house, in the circumstances, should be attached. This order for attachment of the house was passed on 19-12-1988. The property, after attachment, was directed to be handed over in custodia legis to any reliable person. The respondent, Shanker, had moved an application for staying the operation of its above order dated 19-12-1988. The application was accepted on that very day itself and the operation of that order was stayed by that Court. An application was moved by the second party before the District Judge for transfer of the proceedings. This application was moved on 18-9-1989. The District Judge had summoned the record of this case and fixed 30-9-1989. The record was to reach there within this time. This fact, according to the contention of the learned Counsel, was brought to the notice of the Court concerned, but yet, without paying any heed to all these facts and circumstances, in an illegal manner, the order dated 23-9-1989, for giving effect to the attachment order dated 18-12-1988, was passed by the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It is an important fact, as available from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, that before the passage of attachment order dated 19-12-1988 an application for transfer of the case was pending before the District Magistrate and without waiting for the order in that transfer application the Magistrate has passed the order dated 19-12-1988. In my opinion, it is always conducive in the interest of justice that if such a fact is brought to the notice of the enquiry Court, it must stay the proceedings and await for the decision of such a transfer application. It must not hurry through the proceedings. The justice must appear to have been done not only in black and white but also must so appear from the conduct of the proceedings by the Judicial Officer.