BADAL Vs. MAIKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by one of the parties to the proceedings u/Section 145, CrPC. The facts relevant to the points argued before me are that the applicant initiated proceedings u/Section 145, CrPC against the opposite parties on 7-7-1973 on the ground of apprehension of breach of peace about possession of a land in village Nasirpur, tahsil Haidergarh, district Barabanki. The learned magistrate after hearing both the sides upheld the case of the applicants and ordered that opposite party no. 1 would not interfere in their possession until he gets the matter decided in his favour by a competent court. THIS order was passed on 23-8-1975.

(2.) THE opposite party no. 1 Maiku filed a revision. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was transferred held that the finding of the Magistrate was not warranted by the facts and he further held that it was opposite party no. 1 who was in possession on the date of the order. Accordingly he set aside the order of the Magistrate: and further ordered that the disputed land be released in favour of the opposite party no. 1 and that the applicants; will not interfere in his possession till they get the matter decided by a competent court in their favour.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants contends that a revision is a continuation of the proceedings which was pending at the time the new Act came into force and, therefore, it should be covered by this sub-clause. This is not correct. A revision is not the continuation of the old proceedings to which it relates.