MANOHAR LAL Vs. SHEO LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents was that the order dated 3.4.1998 passed by the S.D.M. Sirsa was a composite order and in these circumstances revision before the Court of Session was competent. In the alternative it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that even for the purpose of Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. the order dated 3.4.1998 is not an interlocutory order as it has finally adjudicated some rights of the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents relies upon Keshavprasad Bhatt v. Rameschandra, 1990 Crl. L.J. 1541, Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and ors., AIR 1977 SC 2185, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 S.C. 47. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Kartar Singh and ors. v. Smt. Pritam Kaur & anr., 1984(1) RCR 617(DB) : 1985(1) CLR 338, a Division Bench authority of this Court where it has been held that order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order withim the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. and as such revision against the same is barred.

(2.) IN this case the Calander was filed against Sheo Lal and others on 20.3.1997 and a prayer was made by SHO, Police Station Nathusari Chopta for the attachment of the land and it was also prayed by the SHO to appoint a receiver as he felt that there might be a breach of peace over the immovable property. On receipt of the Calender, the learned SDM issued notice to both the parties for 21.4.1997. At that point of time he did not pass the order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. Subsequently the order dated 3.4.1998 has been passed holding as follows :-

(3.) NOTHING stated above shall amount an expression of my opinion on the merits of the order. Petition allowed.