MOHD SHABAN TELI Vs. MALIK AB GANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P C. pending in the Court of C. J. M. Sopore, the petitioners made an application on 27 -3 -1976 praying that they be added as parties to the proceedings because the property in respect of which the proceedings have been initiated u/s 145 Cr. P. C. was in fact in the possession of the petitioners and that they were the owners of the shop in dispute. The trial court vide its order dated 8 -7 -1978 rejected the application and refused to make the petitioners as party to the proceedings on the ground that neither of them had any concern direct or indirect with the shop in dispute. The learned trial Magistrate was further of the view that in case at the end of proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. it was found that neither of the parties before him was in actual physical possession of the disputed property then resort could be taken to S. 146 Cr. P. C. and in that case the claimants could be arrayed as party to the proceedings and would have then full opportunity to put forth and substantiate their claims. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed,

(2.) THE first objection raised by Shri S.L. Kaul appearing for the respondents was that the impugned order being an interlocutory one the revision could not be entertained in law. There was no doubt that if an order is in the nature of an interim order, no revision would lie against such an order. There are, however, cases and orders which could not be said with certainty to be of interim nature. The impugned order appears to me to be one such order. Two persons have applied to the court that they were in fact in possession of the shop in dispute between the parties to the proceedings. On plain reading of S. 145 Cr. P. C. it would appear that the main concern of the provision of law was to avoid disputes likely to cause breach of peace concerning any land or water or to boundaries thereof. The dispute with regard to the possession may not be confined to the parties only before the court. It may be profitable to reproduce here S. 145 (5) Cr. P. C: - S. 145 (5) Cr. P. C.

(3.) FROM a reading of this sub section, it appears that the Magistrate shall even hear any person interested in showing that no such dispute as mentioned in section 145 Cr. P. C. existed on spot. If the petitioners herein had said in their application that they were the owners of the shop they appear to me to be interested parties in the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C, even though the concern of the Magistrate was only to investigate with regard to the actual possession of the disputed shop.