MUSLIM ALAM Vs. SHAHNAZ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 9th July, 1990 passed by Sri Jiwan Tigga, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge.Singhbhum at Chaibassa in Cr1. Revision No. 78/88 preferred by opposite party No. 2 through which the said revision was allowed and the order dated 25-4-1988 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 693 of 1984 was set aside and the case was remitted to the learned Executive Magistrate for a denite finding in respect of the disputed plot and its proper declaration in the eyes of law.

(2.) The fact, it short, for the purpose of this revision is that a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. was drawn /up bearing Misc. Case No. 690/84 in respect of the house standing on holding No. 55-A measuring 20 X 40 under Ward No. 3 bearing plot No. 858/861 in Dhadkidih block. P.S. Bistupur and in that proceeding the petitioners were the members of the first party and opposite party No. 2 was the second party. In the trial court both the parties claimed possession over the disputed land in which there is a house also and adduced oral and documentary evidence. Learned Executive Magistrate Sri B.P. Sinha vide order dated 29-4-1988 in the Possession of the first party was declared. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 78/88 which was allowed by order dated 9th July, 1990 by the 2nd Additional Sessions judge. Singhbhum at Chaibassa and the case was remitted back to the Executive Magistrate for fresh decision, so far plot No. 858/861 of the disputed land was concerned.

(3.) At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of remand by the revisional court is apparently bad because on flimsy ground the case was remanded back to the learned Executive Magistrate and it was held by him that the first party in the petition under section 145, Cr. P.C. and also in the notice of the proceeding disputed land was described as six rooms standing on holding No. 55-A measuring 20T X 40 in ward No. 3 bearing plot No. 858/860 in Dhatkidih block P.S. Bistupur, but the sale-deed was filed in which other details are the same such as ward number holding number etc. and the area but plat No. 858/861. So the only discrepancy was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that in the proceeding the other details of the land was same but the plat number was 850/860 and though the sale-deed produced an behalf of the first party mentioned plot No. 858/861 and because of the vagueness of plot No. that is whether it should be 858/860 or 858/861, he remitted back the proceeding to the learned Executive Magistrate far a fresh decision only an the paint of disputed land far ascertaining the plat number in question.