NIRMAL SINGH Vs. HARDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-9-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated 21-10-2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar, has been accepted.

(2.) APPREHENDING dispute qua the immovable property, the Kalandra under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar-l. After the parties were allowed to lead evidence, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that the possession of the disputed shop was taken from Nirmal Singh by the Police and Hardeep Singh has failed to show any evidence regarding his ownership. Therefore, he had no right to take possession and it was ordered the possession of the disputed property be handed over to Nirmal Singh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntla Devi, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 881 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 100, contends that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained in law as the petitioner has been merely non-suited on his failure to show his ownership.