PURNENDU NARAYAN Vs. AKHOURI JAGANNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Arrah, Sadr, dated the 24th of February, 1951, refusing an application of the petitioner to be added as a party to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The short facts are these. On the 7th of June, 1950, there was a police report about an apprehension of a breach of the peace regarding a piece of land in Arrah town between Akhori Jagannath Prasad on one side and Bhubeneshwar Prasad on the other. On this police report a proceeding under S 144, Criminal P. C., was drawn up on the 8th of June, 1950. This proceeding was ultimately converted into a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, on the 20th of July, 1950. In the original proceeding the parties were Akhouri Jagannath Prasad, first party and Bhubneshwar Prasad, second party. I may state here that Srimati Radhika Devi, opposite party No. 3 before me, is the wife of Babu Bhubneshwar Prasad, second party before the learned Magistrate. It appears that on some petition filed on behalf of Akhouri Jagannath Prasad near about August 1950 some more persons were added as parties, namely, Saheb Roza Mian and Mt. Jaitunnissa. Srimati Radhika Devi, wife of Bhubneshwar Prasad, was also added as a party.

(2.) I may indicate here very briefly the nature of the claims of the two principal parties to the dispute. Akhouri Jagannath Prasad claimed to be in possession on the basis of a settlement alleged to have been made by Mt. Sahidanand Saheb Roza. Mt. Sahidan, it may be stated here, was the mother-in-law of Mt. Jaitunnissa. Bhubneshwar Prasad and his wife Radhika Devi claimed to have purchased the property from Saheb Roza and claimed to be in possession on the strength or that purchase. The proceedings were amended by adding the parties, and then on the 1st of February, 1951, the enquiry began. Some witnesses were examined on that date some more witnesses were examined on the 6th February, 1951, and again on the 12th of February, 1951. On the 22nd of February 1951, the present petitioner made an application to be added as a party. The petitioner claimed to be added as a party on the strength of a sale deed alleged to have been executed by Mt. Jaitunnissa on the 13th of July, 1950. It was stated that the consideration for the sale deed was paid as late as the 8th of February 1951; that is, after the enquiry had already proceeded for a considerable time. The application which the petitioner made to be added as a party, after the enquiry had begun, was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated the 22nd of February, 1951. On the 24th of February, 1951, the petitioner again applied to be substituted in place of Jaitunnissa. That petition was again rejected. The petitioner then moved the learned Sessions Judge without any success. Then he moved this Court on which the present rule was issued.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the expression "parties concerned" occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Criminal P. C., should not be construed narrowly and should be so construed as to include persons who claim to be in possession after a notice of the order has been served as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in 'LEELA SINGH v. B.' P. SINGH', 27 Pat L T 484. The question before me is not really about the meaning of the words "parties concerned" occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 145. The question before me is whether any person who claims to be interested in the dispute can as a matter of right, claim to be added as a party after the enquiry has commenced. The legal position with regard to that question has been clearly stated in the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in 'KRISHNA KAMINI v. ABDUL JUBBAR', 30 Cal. 155. Hill, J., with whom the majority of Judges concurred, stated as follows: