SAPAM PUNSHI SINGH Vs. LAISANGBAM TOMBA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein obtained a final decree in the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Mainpur, in I. S. Ho. 28 of 1954 on. MKL956. Thereafter they took out execution in Execution Case No. 81 of 1956 and obtained delivery of possession of the land under patta No. 88/148 -N of Konthoujam village on 11.10.1958, immediately trouble Began for them. The Munsiff who had granted delivery of possession to them, later cancelled the said deliver order on the application of the respondents. The petitioners took the matter in appeal to the District Judge, but the appeal was dismissed. They came in second Appeal to the Court of the Judicial commissioner and in the second Appeal, the cancellation of the delivery order by me Munsiff was set aside and delivery of possession given to the petitioners on 11 -10 -1358 was confirmed on 2.6.1960.

(2.) BUT the respondents were not prepared to abide by the orders of Courts. They again sought to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. So the petitioners applied in Criminal Case N. F.I R. No. 54 of 1960 on 30.6.1960 to the Magistrate Shri K.L. Singh to take action against the respondents under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code But any Magistrate's Court the confirmation of the possession of the petitioners by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner on 2.6.1960 ought to have been sufficient to hold that the petitioners were in possession and that if the respondents Interfered with the said possession, they should be prevented from doing so by taking proceedings against them under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code But the ways of this Magistrate appeared to the quite different. He seemed to attach more value to the Police report which he called for, in which the Police stated that both parties should be proceeded against under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code Accordingly, he passed an order on 12.8.1960 directing both parties to furnish bond for Rs. 500/ - to keep the peace. The petitioners filed a petition protesting against the said order on 19 -8 -60 and pointing out that their possession had been confirmed by the Judicial Commissioner on 2.5.1960 and that they should not therefore be directed to give security and that the respondents ought to be directed to do so. But this petition was not even considered by the Magistrate, instead, on 13.9.1960, he passed an order that he was satisfied that there was likelihood of Breach of the peace between the parties and drew up proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and attached the land and directed the parties to put in written statements of their respective claims.

(3.) THE petitioners protested against this and pointed out to the Magistrate that their possession was beyond dispute in view of the order of the Judicial Commissioner and that it was the respondents who should be proceeded against under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code But these arguments fell on deaf ears and the Magistrate passed another order on 3.10.1960 that it was desirable that proceedings be drawn up under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and he directed the parties to put in their written statements. One fails to understand what this Magistrate had to decide under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, as the possession of the petitioners had been confirmed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner as late as 2.6.1960. Anyway, the petitioners filed their written statement again pointing out that their possession has been confirmed on 2.6.1960 by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner after their title had been established in the Civil Court in T.S. No. 28 of against the respondents. The respondents in their written statement only stated that fraud was practiced on them by the petitioners in obtaining the decree in T. S. No. 28 of 1954 and that they had tiled a suit in the Munsiff's Court to set aside the said decree. They had nothing to say about the delivery of possession to the petitioners in the Munsiff's Court on 11.10.1958 and the confirmation of the said possession, by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner on 2.6.1960. This was very material, because it was not the case of the respondents that they again got possession after 11.10.1958 or 2.6.1960. Thus, as the petitioners possession had been confirmed on 2.6.1960, they certainly continued in possession even on the day when the preliminary order was passed under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code