IQBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. has arisen in the following manner. The parties to the dispute are the progeny of Sher Singh. Whereas the petitioner is the son of Sher Singh, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are his daughters/grand-daughters. The estate of Sher Singh comprising agricultural lands and kothas and a tube well etc, situate thereon, gave rise to a dispute between the parties after the death of Sher Singh. The estate of Sher Singh was mutated by the Revenue Officer between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in equal shares vide order dated 31-1-1983. The petitioner then filed a suit praying that he was the sole legal heir of the property in question and that the order of the Revenue Officer dated 31-1-1983 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the petitioner. He also filed an application for interim injunction under O. 39. Rr.1 and 2 of the Civil P.C., praying for the grant of interim injunction restraining the contesting respondents from alienating the suit property and disturbing the possession of the petitioner. Ad interim injunction was granted to the petitioner on 28-3-1984 in the presence of the parties. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra. The learned District Judge on 4-6-84 modified the order under appeal and ordered that the parties shall maintain status quo regarding the possession over the land which was subject-matter of partition and they shall not alienate the same in any manner till the decision of the suit.

(2.) As a new move, the contesting respondents Nos. 2 to 5 moved the Sub- Divisional Officer. Thanesar, for initiating proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. and requested that attachment of the property be effected under S. 146, Cr. P.C. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 6-8-1984 (now questioned) initiated proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. by recording his requisite satisfaction and further ordered the attachment of the land in question under S. 146,Cr. P.C. appointing the Naib Tehsildar as Receiver.

(3.) The matter has been canvassed by the learned counsel on the anvil of a few precedents of this Court. Whereas the petitioner maintains that in view of the order of the Civil Court attachment under S.146, Cr.P.C. could not have been resorted to, the respondents on the other hand maintain that such a course was permissible as laid down by this Court in a Division Bench judgment in Mohinder Singh v. Dilbagh Rai, (1976) 78 Pun LR 803: (1977 Cri LJ 1029). The respective contentions are based upon the decisions being dealt with hereafter.