MANDO KUMHHARUNI Vs. DUTIA RANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) THE Petitioner Mando Kumbharuni filed Title Suit No. 87 of 1966 in the court of the Munsif, Sonepur, for declaration of her title over the plaint 'B' schedule lands, which includes the lands which are the subject -matter of the 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding. The suit was decreed and her title in respect of the said 'B' schedule lands was declared. Rahas Rana (father of the present opposite party No. 1) preferred the Title Appeal No. 57/42 of 1970/71 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sonepur and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the said Rahas Rana preferred Second Appeal No. 161 of 1973 before this Court. However, the Petitioner had taken possession of the 'B' schedule lands on 5 -12 -1973. The Second Appeal was only partly allowed in that this Court held that both the parties were entitled to joint possession. Subsequently, Rahas Rana filed a petition under Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure) in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1979 in the court of the learned Munsif for restitution of his share of lands. The learned Munsif rejected the petition for restitution. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Munsif, the said Rahas Rana preference Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1980 before the Subordinate Judge. Sonepur, and the same was allowed by him. As against the said order of restitution, the present Petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 1983 before this Court and the impugned order of restitution was stayed by this Court. This Court by judgment dated 13 -5 -1988 set aside the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and allowed the appeal. It is in the background of the above stated facts, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, merits consideration to find out if the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the Executive Magistrate initiating proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the lands in dispute is in accordance with law.

(3.) IN Brajamohan Nath v. Smt. Kesi Tripathy : 57 (1984) C.L.T. 145, a decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court held as follows: