ASHOK KUMAR AGARWALA Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on an application filed by the respondent 1st party, a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P.C., was drawn up in respect of a plot of land measuring 1K-13L out of 14K-10L covered by Dag No. 1211 of Patta No. 48 situated at Lanka Town under Mauza Lanka and bounded by North-P.W.D. Road, South-Heirs of Dinesh Dutta, East-Noorjahan Hotel and land of Late Rajendra, West-Bhawgatilal Agarwal, hereinafter referred as the D/L. The said proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC was converted to a proceeding under Section 145, CrPC and the D/L was attached, by a common order dated 1-2-92. Therefore on 19-2-92 the respondent 1st party informed the Court that he has instituted a civil suit in respect of the D/L. Learned Executive Magistrate thereafter vide impugned order dated 19-2-92 dropped the proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC. The petitioner 2nd party has filed the present revision challenging the impugned order of dropping the proceeding.

(3.) There is no dispute at the Bar that the proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC is the subject matter for consideration in the civil suit filed by the 1st party. In view of the decision of the Apex court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mohan v. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1985 SC 472 : (1985 Cri LJ 752), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mohan (supra) was different as this is a suit based on title and possession. In the present case the civil suit filed by the 1st party is for declaration of plaintiff's rightful posssession and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner 2nd party from dispossessing the plaintiff. The ratio laid down in Ram Sumer Puri Mohan (supra) is when a civil litigation is pending parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C.will be justified. Whether civil suit is for recovery of possession or for confirmation of possession, the question is immaterial, as because in both events, the civil Court has been called upon to decide the possession of the party.