RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 26th February, 1982, passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the present petitioner Rattan Singh, Teja Singh respondent No. 2 had agreed to sell 14 kanal 9 marlas of land to him and his brother Gursharan Singh in equal shares for Rs. 13545.00 and had executed an agreement of sale on 30th July, 1980. Teja Singh received Rs. 2,000/- as earnest money and on the same day i.e. 30th July, 1980, he delivered possession of the land to the petitioner and since then he and Gursharan Singh are in possession of this land. The sale deed was stipulated to be executed and registered within one week. On 18th August, 1980. Teja Singh received Rs. 6,000 more as earnest money and the date for execution of sale deed was extended upto 1st July, 1981. However in collusion with respondents Nos. 3 to 5 Teja Singh backed out of the agreement of sale. Thereupon Rattan Singh and his brother Gursharan Singh filed a civil suit for the specific performance of the contract. On 15th June, 1981, the Civil Court passed an interim order ordering the maintenance of status quo regarding possession. Instead of obeying the injunction order, respondents No. 2 to 5 prevailed upon the Station House Officer, Rajpura, who presented a calendar in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, for initiating proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code). The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, - vide order dated 11th February, 1982, returned the calender on the ground that it had not been proved that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the possession of the land and the dispute was regarding agreement of sale and, therefore, proceedings under section 145 of the Code could not be taken. However, later on the same day the Sub Divisional Magistrate reviewed that order and passed a preliminary order under section 145 of the Code and issued summons to the parties for 24th February, 1982, for filing reply and producing evidence. No notice was served on the petitioner for 24th February, 1982. On 24th February, 1982 the Sub Divisional Magistrate adjourned the case for consideration. On 26th February, 1982, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order. On 16th March, 1982, the receiver ordered that the crops which had been sown by the petitioner, would be sold by auction on 22nd March, 1982. According to the petitioner, orders dated 11th February, 1982 and 26th February, 1982, are illegal and ultra-vires for the reasons given in para No. 1 on the Grounds of Revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the calandar under section 145 of the Code was first presented before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 11th February, 1982, the learned Magistrate had refused to entertain it and had returned it holding that there was no dispute between the parties regarding possession and that the dispute was regarding agreement of sale and that the said officer had further ordered that if there was any apprehension of the breach of peace, the police could take proceedings under section 107 and 151 of the Code and, therefore, when the calandar was again put up before him on the same day, he was not competent to entertain it because it will amount to recalling the earlier order and no provision of the Code allows such review. I am of the opinion that the above argument has no force. When the calandar was first presented it might not be containing full facts. The respondents have find a copy of that calandar and it shows that after it had been returned by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Station Hose Officer again presented it with the report that both the parties state their possession over the land in dispute and therefore, proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken. It was also mentioned in the report that as far as question of breach of peace was concerned, calandar under sections 107/151 of the Code had already been sent to the Court. I am of the opinion that in the present case the entertainment of the calandar by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, after first returning it, will not amount to review of the earlier order. When the matter was clarified by the Station House Officer in his report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was entitled to entertain it.