NEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the disputed land were initiated on March 23, 1985, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Marlerkotla, against Nehar Singh petitioner No. 1 and Hardial Singh respondent No. 2. The relevant calender is Annexure P. 9 and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiating the proceedings thereon is Annexure P. 10. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the disputed land and appointed a Recover to take possession thereof under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter called the Code vide an order dated April 16, 1985 (Annexure P. 12). In the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code the validity of the order Annexure P. 12 has been questioned by the petitioners Nahar Singh and Mohinder Singh.

(2.) Undisputed facts of this case are that Mohinder Singh petitioner No. 2 filed a civil suit on August 23, 1983 against Nahar Singh, petitioner No. 1, and his brother Inder Singh for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the disputed land. On an application under Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the plaintiff, the trial Court issued ad interim injunction on August 23, 1983 restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit (Annexure 2). This suit was eventually decreed on December 12, 1985 (Annexure P. 4). During the pendency of the suit Hardial Singh, respondent No. 2, obtained a consent decree on December 16, 1983, against the aforesaid Inder Singh to the effect that he was owner of t share in the disputed land. On the basis of this decree Hardial Singh claimed interest in the land in dispute, which led to a dispute between him and the petitioners regarding possession. It is on this account that proceedings under section 145 of the Code were initiated against Nehar Singh and Hardial Singh respondent No. 2.

(3.) The learned petitionerTs counsel did not object to the initiation of proceedings under section 145 of the Code in respect of the disputed land. His contention, however, is that the subsequent order under section 146 of the Code (Annexure P. 11) deserves to be quashed.