SAGARMAL Vs. DILIPSINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though numbered as a civil revision, this case really arises out of a reference made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure to the civil Court in a case where he was unable to decide which of the two contesting parties was in possession and had accordingly to make an attachment. The only question to which we have to address ourselves is whether the notion of pecuniary competency is involved in the description-"a civil Court of competent jurisdiction" in Section 146(1), Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The matter is of general importance because situations of this nature arise quite frequently in the Magistrates' Courts all over the country. Another point is that a similar phrase occurs in Sub-section (1-E) and as will be presently shown, may not mean the same thing as it does in Sub-section (1). It is difficult to avoid the impression that the use of similar phrases in both the Sub-sections is likely to cause some confusion: it has accordingly to be explained.

(3.) The purpose of a reference under Sub-section (1) is not to get a decision of the controversy in a full-dressed hearing but to enable the Magistrate to get the advice of a civil Court on a problem which is by its very nature of a kind with which a civil Court is more familiar than a Magistrate. Again, the focus of attention is not title but possession. Accordingly, under Sub-sections (1) and (2) the referee civil Court has to make a summary inquiry on the question of possession and report its decision to the Magistrate who shall dispose of the proceedings before him in conformity with this report. By its very nature the limited problem before the civil Court enquiring into the reference under Sub-section (1) is not anything capable of a precise pecuniary valuation; further, unless the context indicates otherwise the notion of pecuniary jurisdiction is foreign to the framework of the Criminal Procedure Code; accordingly we have to read this Sub-section as one enabling the Magistrate to obtain what might be conveniently called "expert advice" on the problem of possession. So it is open to him to make the reference to any civil Court which by its location has jurisdiction over the subject matter whether or not it is competent in pecuniary jurisdiction.