MEWA RAM Vs. RAM AVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On application of Ram Avtar under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Mevva Ram and Amar Singh, sons of Ami Chand of district Gurgaon, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gurgaon ordered attachment of agricultural land measuring 22 Kanals and 13 Marlas situated in village Badshahpur, district Gurgaon and he also appointed the Naib Tehsildar as Supardar of the aforesaid property. This order has been challenged by Mewa Ram and Amar Singh, the two sons of Ami Chand, residents of village Teekli, district Gurgaon by means of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been alleged that the impugned order dated 9.4.1990 is ex-parte ; that it should not have been passed because both the parties have agreed to maintain status quo regarding possession till the civil suit pending inter se the parties was finally decided.

(2.) Mewa Ram and Amar Singh instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction during vacations and when Shri S.N. Chadha, Additional District Judge, Gurgaon was on duty, an order was passed on 6-7-1989 in favour of Mewa Ram and Amar Singh for temporary injunction that their possession shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the civil suit. It may be added here that the same Judicial Officer, during the aforesaid period of vacation, passed another order in a suit filed subsequently by Ram Avtar and others against aforesaid Mewa Ram and others, restraining them from dispossessing Ram Avtar and others. The present position is that in civil suit No. 697 of 1989 instituted by Mewa Ram and another issues have been framed on 26-4-1990 and there is a specific mention in the order that the parties have agreed to maintain status quo regarding possession. There is also an observation in the aforesaid order that the case was likely to be decided by August, 1990.

(3.) It is during the pendency of the aforesaid two civil suits referred to above that Ram Avtar moved an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and succeeded in securing the impugned order on 9-4-1990 from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gurgaon. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Amrik Singh and anr. v. The State of Punjab and anr., 1987 (1) C.L.R. 157 where exercise of the jurisdiction under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the pendency of the civil suit was disliked. In Pritam Singh alias Pritam Dass and ors. v. State of Punjab and anr. 1985 (2) C.L.R. 689 referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the interference by the Sub Divisional Magistrate during pendency of a civil suit was disapproved. In the case in hand as well, there has not been any untoward incident inter se the parties. Another authority referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab and ors., 1986 (2) C.L.R. 653 where also status quo was being maintained inter se the parties in view of the pending civil suit in district Ludhiana.