BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on a Kalendera initiated by the S.H.O., Police Station Shambhu on 28.7.1996 (Annexure P-5), the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura passed a preliminary order-Annexure P-6 dated 5.8.1996 directing the parties namely, the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 herein to lead evidence regarding their respective claims in respect of the possession of the disputed property. The petitioners claim that they have filed their written statement vide Annexure P-7 on 23.9.1997. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 fairly concedes that the respondents have not so far filed their reply inasmuch as it is on their complaint that the kalendera has been put in. But even if the kalendera was lodged on a complaint by respondents 2 and 3, the respondents 2 and 3 ought to have filed their statement of claim in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate vide Annexure P-6.

(3.) I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners in this respect. The order Annexure P-8 impugned in this petition does not say that the learned Magistrate was unable to decide as to who is in possession of the property or that the property is not in the possession of either of the parties.