ANIL KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, dated February 6, 1986 accepting the revision petition of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, on November 22, 1985 whereby the property in dispute was attached under Section 146 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On a report submitted by Sub Inspector Kartar Singh, Police Station city Panipat, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, started proceedings under Section 145 of the Code against the parties and attached the property in dispute and appointed a Receiver vide his order dated November 22, 1985.

(2.) MR . N.C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents at the outset contended that it stands established from the record that before the order of attachment was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had filed a suit for the permanent injunction against the petitioner and on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned Sub-Judge II Class, Panipat, vide his order dated December 12, 1985 issued ad interim injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondents over the property in dispute till the final disposal of the case on merits and that on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said interim order of injunction, the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal set aside the impugned order December 12, 1985. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents then filed a Civil Revision No. 510 of 1986 against the order of the Additional District Judge, Karnal and at the time of motion hearing on 21.2.1986, this Court issued notice for 23rd April, 1986 and status quo with regard to the possession was ordered to be maintained. J.V. Gupta, J. while disposing of the said revision petition on May 23, 1986 observed in the following terms :-

(3.) IT is well settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that after the issue of an order by the Civil Court granting ad interim injunction in favour of one party, proceedings under Section 142, Criminal Procedure Code and the attraction of its emergency powers under sub-section (4) could be taken by an Executive Magistrate only at the instance of the party in whose favour ad interim injunction had been issued and not at the instance of the party who has been restrained from interfering with the possession of the party. In view of this enunciated law, this petition is dismissed and the proceedings pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat are quashed. Petition dismissed.