DEOMANI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, being aggrieved by the order dated 8/10/93 passed by the learned court below in Cr. Revision No. 226/90 by reason of which the said revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, the petitioner has moved this Court.

(2.) BEFORE considering the grievance of the petitioner a potrya of the background of facts is necessary: The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 is in respect of a piece of land appertaining to plot No. 27, Khata No. 17 situated at Jharudih in the district of Dhanbad. In respect of the same land a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was initiated between the parties and by order dated 20.8.93 possession of the wife of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Urmila Devi, was declared by the court below. It is not in dispute that against the said order respondent No. 2 moved this Court in revision which was, ultimately, allowed to be withdrawn. After withdrawal of the revision, respondent No. 2 filed title suit No. 54/91 which is pending before the competent court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the basis of preponderance of materials on record, the revisional court has erred in law in dismissing the revision application. He submits that the learned Executive Magistrate should not have dismissed the petition by which a prayer: for dropping the proceeding was made. In my view, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is only to be noted and to be rejected. In my view by order dated 23.6.90 the learned Executive Magistrate has correctly held that as the maintainability matter was already decided by his predecessor on 28.9.89 and admittedly no revision against that order was preferred by the petitioner, that order becomes final. He has, in my opinion, under these circumstances, rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. Similarly, in my view, the revisional court has also rightly dismissed the revision petition which was preferred against interlocutory order of the Executive Magistrate. Moreover, as the revisional court has given ample opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before the learned S.D.M. in my virw no case has been made out for interference with the impugned order by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution.