KALU RAM Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXECUTIVE Magistrate/City Magistrate, Sirsa, took cognizance on a Kalandara presented by the police under Section 145, Cr.P.C., on Ist June, 1987. Both the parties were summoned and directed to file their reply. While proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., were pending, the Magistrate passed an order dated 12th August, 1987, attaching the agricultural land in dispute and appointing Tehsildar, Sirsa as Receiver to manage the same and maintain its accounts under the rules. The case was adjourned for recording of evidence for 7th September, 1987. It is mentioned in the order that the first party (the petitioners herein) were adamant to occupy their previous land once again and did not want to accept the exchanged land; that the second party (the respondents in this petition) was preventing the first party from taking possession; that the second party relied on an agreement with regard to exchange of land executed by the parties on 8th October, 1986 in pursuance of which possession of agricultural land in dispute was taken by the second party and the first party had taken possession of the land given by the second party in exchange.

(2.) THIS order has been challenged by the petitioners, i.e., the first party in the proceedings, on the ground that they had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the second party, i.e. the respondents, from interfering in any manner with their cultivating possession and ownership rights. In that suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, read with section 151, Code of Civil Procedure (for short, C.P.C.) was filed and the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sirsa, passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the possession of the land in dispute on 29th/30th April, 1987. The argument is that since the Civil Court was seized of the matter and had passed an order of status quo no proceedings can be initiated under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.).

(3.) THE said respondents have attached agreement of exchange (Annexure R1/1), arbitration agreement (Annexure R1/2), awared of the arbitrators (Annexure R1/3) and an affidavit on behalf of Kalu Singh and others (Annexure R1/4), in support of their pleadings. From these documents it is clear that both the parties exchanged their lands and other property with each other. Dispute was referred to the arbitrations and vide award Annexure R1/3, the factum of the agreement of exchange, and acting thereupon by entering into possession by the parties have been held to be correct. Further fact has been brought to light that a house comprising an area of 15 marlas and consisting of seven pucca rooms, verandah, kitchen one bath room, one big iron gate, one hand-pump fitted with electric motor, which were earlier owned by the respondents have been agreed to be sold by the petitioners/first party for a consideration of Rs. 67,000/-. The affidavit further shows that the whole of the amount was received by the petitioners (the fist party) on 16th January, 1987. This affidavit clearly shows that the petitioners took possession of the property earlier owned by respondents No. 1 and 2 and others.