SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 9th June, 1982 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Jullundur, ordering attachment of a parcel of land situate in the revenue estate of Singh, Police Station Sadar Jalandhar.

(2.) THE facts as appear from the various documents brought on the fire are that the present respondents Balwinder Singh and Buta Singh had filed a Suit against Surinder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Kultar Singh Mukhtiar Singh for a declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 19th March, 1981, and 3rd April, 1981, with respect to the land in dispute were illegal, void and without consideration and were not binding on them. They also prayed for the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit land from them. According to the allegations in the plaint they were illiterate and immature persons and the defendants had got executed the sale deeds from them by falsely representating that they were getting executed power of attorneys from them. The plaintiffs also prayed for a temporary injunction and it was granted ex-parte. The defendants filed an application for vacation of the ex-parte interim injunction. Vide order dated 6th May, 1982, the learned Sub judge Ist Class, Jullundur, vacated the ex-parte and interim injunction holding that he was of the opinion that the documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the defendants prima facie made out a case of their lawful possession over the suit property, During discussion the learned Sub Judge also remarked that prima facie he was of the considered opinion that having invested a subtantial amount of approximately a couple of lacs of rupees, the defendants could not have remained without possession of the property mentioned in the sale deed for a period of wo harvests. It appears that thereafter the plaintiffs got manouvered a calender under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defendant o that suit and one Surinder Kaur were arrayed as second party in those proceedings. Executive Magistrate Jullundur passed an order dated 18th May, 1982 under Section 145 calling upon the parties to appear in his court and to file their respective claims. After the documents had been filed, the learned Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 9th June 1982, under Section 146, ordering attachment of the disputed land. The second party has filed this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that the civil court is already seized of the matter and, therefore, the proceedings under sections 145 or 146, Code of Criminal Procedure ought not to have been entertained by the Executive Magistrate. However, this argument has no force. In Mohinder Singh v. Shri Dilbagh Rai. 1975 PLR 893 it was held tha the mere pendency of the civil suit about the same subject-matter between the same parties does not restrain the criminal court from exercising jurisdiction under.