RAVI RAMAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.

(2.) THE dispute in the case related to a residential house which admittedly belongs to the family of the appellants and was in possession of respondent No.4 as a tenant. The appellants and their father filed a suit for eviction impleading respondent No.4 as a party, which was decreed In execution of the decree the appellants were put in physical possession of the house with the aid of police force. The case of respondent No.4 is that there was an agreement for sale of the property to him and in part performance thereof he continued in possession of the house and was, therefore, not liable to be evicted. He has filed Title Suit No. 27 of 1991 in the Court of Munsif, Hazaribagh, on the basis of the alleged agreement which is still pending. He continued to assert his possession of the house and was not reconciled even after his dispossession with the aid of the police force, and ultimately an incident took place on 15.9.1991 which is the subject matter of a pending criminal case: According to the appellants respondent No.4 opened fire in a bid to take over possession of the - house and a first information report was lodged with the police.

(3.) ACCORDING to the impugned order of the High Court, when on. the initiation of the proceeding under section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure both the parties had been restrained from entering upon the property, it was not right for the Sub -Divisional Magistrate to have allowed the appellants later to take possession of the property. An examination of the impugned judgment will show that the High Court failed to appreciate the crucial fact that the appellants were not put in possession of the property by Sub -Divisional Magistrate on the termination of the proceeding under section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure, but had obtained actual physical possession thereof earlier in the execution of the eviction decree with police aid and the status quo was restored by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate while disposing of the proceeding under section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissing the application of the respondent No.4 for starting a fresh proceeding under section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure.