RAM KISHORE Vs. BALI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by Ram Kishore, and it arises under the following circumstances :

(2.) It appears that the applicant initiated proceedings under Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code against the opposite parties in respect of the property mentioned in his application. His case was that he wanted to make some new constructions on the said land but as the opposite party threatened him with dire consequence he was prevented from making those constructions as a result of which there was an apprehension of breach of peace. On this application the learned S. D. M. called for a police report, and on being satisfied that an apprehension of breach of peace in respect of the said property existed, he passed a preliminary order under Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and pending decision attached the subject of dispute. By the same order he directed the parties to file their written-statements, affidavits, documents etc. on which they relied as regards their respective claims to actual possession of the subject of dispute. The parties filed their written-statements, affidavits etc. On the date of hearing, however, the applicant made a statement that he was prepared to have the case decided on the statement of Sri Pramatma Ram, Advocate if made on the special oath proposed by the applicant. Sri Pramatma Ram accepted the offer and made a statement to the effect in dispute had been in the continuous possession of Balram Jiwan Ram, Vidhu Ram, Ram Chandra and Jai Ram opposite parties, and before them of their acceptors for the last about 45 years. On this statement being made the learned S. D. M. decided the question of possession in favour of the opposite parties. The applicant preferred a revision to the Court of the Sessions Judge, but meeting with failure there, he filed the aforesaid revision in this Court.

(3.) On behalf of the applicant three contentions were urged in support of this revision. Tie first contention was that as proceedings under Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code had to be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down therein and no other, the learned S. D. M. was in error in deciding it on the basis of a special oath. The second contention was that as the statement made by Sri Pramatma Ram was not in strict accord with the offer made to him, and by which the applicant agreed to be bound, it wag of no avail to the opposite party. The third contention was that as none of the opposite parties accepted the offer made by the applicant, there was no valid agreement between them and consequently the statement of Sri Pramatma Ram was not binding upon the applicant either. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that none of these contentions has any force. I shall, therefore proceed to deal with them in the order stated above.