CHANDI PRASAD Vs. CHAUDHARI CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in re vision arises put of proceedings under Sec tion 145, Criminal P. C. and is directed against an order passed by the Magistrate in terms of Section 146 (1-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE dispute related to a plot of land which each party claimed to be in his exclusive possession. On being satis fied that there was an apprehension of the breach oi the peace in respect of the land In question, the Magistrate attached the property and followed the procedure laid down in sub-clause (1) of Section 145, Cri minal P, C. After perusing the written statements, affidavits and other documents filed by the parties concerned, the Magis trate came to the conclusion that it was a fit case which should be referred to the Civil Court under sub-section (1) of Sec tion 146, Criminal P. C. The parties were directed to appear before the Civil Court and they adduced evidence in support of their respective claims as respects of the fact of possession of the subject of dis pute. The Civil Court recorded a finding that the opposite party was in possession of the disputed plot on the date of the preliminary order as also two months next before the date of such order.

(3.) THE applicant filed a revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate but the same was dismissed. He then came up in revision to this Court and the matter was heard by our brother Rajeshwari Prasad, J., who observed that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Guru Prasad Pandey v. State, 1967 All LJ 649 an order passed by the Magistrate in con formity with the decision of the Civil Court was not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge and the High Court. He was, however, of the view that it was not clear from the said decision whether what was intended was to lay down that no revision petition was entertainable against the order of the Magistrate or. whether it was Intended that the correctness of the finding of the Civil Court was not liable to be challenged by way of revision. He, therefore, direct ed the case to be laid before a larger Bench for decision and that is how the matter has come before us.