MANGE RAM Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANGE Ram petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) for quashing the impugned order dated November 5, 1984 (copy annexure P.1) passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Jhajjar, attaching the property in dispute and appointing a receiver for its management.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to recount the facts leading to this petition because the parties counsel agree that there exists an order of the Civil Court dated September 13, 1984, passed by the Sub -Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar, (copy annexure P 2) whereby the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. filed by respondent No. 2 was dismissed holding that the petitioner was incontinuous possession of the land in dispute. Basing his argument on this decision of the civil Court, the learned counsel for the petition has asserted that it is the petitioner who is in possession of the land in dispute. On the other had, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 asserts that it is the respondent who is in possession of the land. In this state of affairs, the order appointing a receiver by the Sub Divisional Magistrate tantamounts to disturbing the order of the Civil court and tends to deprive the party of its possession, whosoever is in possession of the property in dispute. Be that as it my, respondent No. 2 is using the process of Executive Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code for thwarting the orders and process of the civil Court which clearly amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court of the Executive Magistrate and the provisions of Section 145 of the Code. In a Case of this kind where there exists a likelihood of the breach of peace, it would be more appropriate for the Executive Magistrate to deal with the situation under Section 107 of the Code. In this view of the matter I am fortified by a decision of this Court in Bhagwan Pal v. Prem Kumar Jain and others, 1982 P.L.R. 195.

(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order (copy annexure P. 1) is quashed. Petition allowed.