SRI KANT Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN immovable property situate in village Manauli Hiraj, district Azamgarh belonged to one Ganga Parbat. An application was filed by the Gaon Sabha, Manauli Hiraj under Section 145 CrPC that Ganga Parbat had died heirless and that the Gaon Sabha became the owner of his property. It appears that Sri Kant had brought suit No. 161 of 1972 against the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and Sheo Nath Gonsai with respect to the same property. On 18th October, 1975 it stood abated under Section 3 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Sri Kant was claiming on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by Ganga Parbat. Sheo Nath claimed to be the duly nominated Chela of Ganga Parbat. On these facts the Lekhpal as the Secretary of the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha Manauli Hiraj, filed an application under Section 145 CrPC alleging that there was an apprehension of the breach of peace. A preliminary order was passed on 17-2 - 1977 by the Magistrate. He called upon the parties to file their written statement and documents and to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. After a consideration of the same the Magistrate passed an order on 8th August 1977, by which he directed the property to remain under attachment till the rights of the parties are decided by a competent court. This order was passed because the Magistrate was unable to decide himself as to which party was in possession on the date of the preliminary order. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge by Sheo Nath, which was allowed on 2nd June, 1978. The Sessions Judge remanded the case to the court below for deciding it in accordance with law. The view of the Sessions Judge was that apart from narrating the evidence the Magistrate has not critically examined the same. He, therefore, passed the order of remand. Aggrieved by this order a revision was filed in the High Court which was numbered as 1440 of 1978. This revision was filed by the State and Sheo Nath and Sri Kant were impleaded as opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. I had heard that revision and had dismissed it on 16th August, 1978 on the ground that there was no merit in it. Subsequently the instant revision has been filed by Sri Kant minor in this Court which was admitted by mo on 12th September, 1978. There was no office report in the subsequent revision that an earlier revision against the same order had been dismissed by me.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. Counsel for the applicant has urged that my order dated 16th August, 1978 dismissing the revision should not stand in the way of my allowing the second revision now, if I am satisfied that the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge on 2nd July, 1978 is illegal and erroneous. He submits that the previous revision was filed by the State, who was not authorised to act on behalf of the Gaon Sabha Manauli Hiraj and therefore, it was legally incompetent. While exercising revisional jurisdiction this Court is authorised to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior court situate with at its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of finding, sentence or order recorded by, or any irregularity in the proceedings of such inferior court. This power is very wide. It can be exercised suo moto. It can be exercised even if it is brought to the notice of the revisional court by a person not authorised to represent any party It can be exercised by the parties to the litigation. In other words there is no restriction with respect to the exercise of this power on the ground that a proper party has not approached this Court. A. revisional court is merely concerned with correcting errors and illegalities of the subordinate courts. The manner and the procedure by which the errors have been brought to the notice of the revisional court for correction is hardly material for the exercise of powers under Section 397 CrPC.

(3.) THERE is yet one more reason for non interference with the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dated 2nd July, 1978. He was of the view that the trial court had not critically examined the mass of oral and documentary evidence on the record. THEREfore, he remanded the case to the trial court for re-consideration. It is still open to the Magistrate after re-considering the entire evidence on the record to find himself in a predicament and to be unable to decide the question of possession even after critically examining the documents on the record. In that event the position would be that the property would again be attached under Section 146 (1) CrPC till such time the rights of the parties are decided by a competent civil court. On the other hand, it may also be possible for the court now to come to a different conclusion one way or the other, on a reconsideration of the entire evidence in accordance with law. Needless to say that such a decision would only be arrived at after counsel for both the parties have been heard and they have argued their cases for their respective clients. In this view of the matter, even if the order is passed in favour of one party or the other, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to amy party. On this ground also, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.