FARZAND ALI Vs. SHAUKAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, had before him a proceeding pending under S. 145 of the Criminal P. C. As the Magistrate was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the disputed property at the relevant time, he made a reference to the Civil Court under Sec tion 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure. The reference was decided by the Munsif of Akbarpur and he trans mitted his finding thereon to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divi sional Magistrate on receipt of that find ing disposed of the proceeding before him in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court. Against that order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate an ap plication in revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Faizabad. The Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that in view of an authority of this Court, the finding of the Civil Court could not be challenged in revision not only against that particular finding, but also in revision against the final order passed by the Magistrate on the basis of that finding. A contrary view of a Full Bench of the Patna High Court was cited before him but he being bound by the view of the Allahabad High Court could not help the applicant before him.

(2.) IT is in these circumstances that an application was filed in revision before this Court. The matter came up before a learned single Judge of this Court who referred it to a Division Bench and that Bench finding in conflict of authority of this Court on the point in Ram Govind Singh v. Ram Nath, 1967 All WR (HC) 8 and Syed Hasan v. Munsif Havali. Lucknow, 1967 All WR (HC) 448 these two being the only authorities cited before that Bench, referred the matter to a Full Bench. That is how the matter comes up before us.

(3.) THE trend of authority of this Court is to the effect that it cannot be so challenged: vide Taashuq Hussain v. State. 1958 All LJ 270 = (AIR 1959 All 568); Chokhey Lal Moti Ram v. Babu Lal Behari Lal. AIR 1960 All 599; Badri Nath Panday v. U. P. State, 1963 All LJ 1101 = (AIR 1965 All 127); 1967 All WR (HC) 8 and Guru Prasad Pandey v. State, 1967 All LJ 649. All these authorities except the last one are single Judge authorities, the last one being a decision of Division Bench. A discordant note has been struck only in the single Judge case of 1967 All WR (HC) 448.