LAWS(ALL)-1958-2-36

RAM NATH Vs. SURAJ PRASAD

Decided On February 04, 1958
RAM NATH Appellant
V/S
SURAJ PRASAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Orai, recommending that the order of the S. D. M. Kalpi, dated 15-4-1955, releasing the crop standing on plot No. 469 in favour of one Suraj Prasad be set aside and the case be remanded to him with a direction to readmit the same for trial and dispose it of on merits according to law giving the parties full opportunity to adduce oral and further documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions about the possession of the disputed crop.

(2.) At the very outset it may be noted that the bone of contention in the present case is the crop that stood in plot No. 469. This dispute led the applicant Ram Nath to give an application Under Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code. In this application Ram Nath alleged that he was a tenant of plot No. 469, and that a case was going on in the revenue court between him and the opposite party, namely, Suraj Prasad in respect of this very plot. He further alleged that on this plot he had sown and grown the crops which were the subject matter of dispute, and of which the opposite party had threatend to take forcible possession. There was, therefore, a likelihood of breach of peace in respect of the crop of this plot, it was accordingly prayed that the crop in dispute be attached through police, and, after due enquiry, released in his favour.

(3.) The learned S. D. M. called for a report from the S. O. concerned. He was thereafter satisfied that a bona fide dispute about the crop did exist and was likely to result in a breach of peace. He, accordingly, ordered the attachment of the said crop. The parties were directed to file their respective written statements before the court. Both the applicant as well as the opposite party accordingly filed their written statements. Both claimed in their written statements that they were in possession of the plot. Each of them alleged in his written statement that he was in possession of the plot in question and that the crop in dispute had been sown and grown by him.