AB BARI Vs. AB BASHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON August 17 -1971 Abdul Bashir respondent herein made an application u/s 145 Cr.Pr. Code before the Munsiff Magistrate Mendar, alleging therein that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed between him on the one hand and the petitioner and respondent 2 to 6 on the other concerning Khasra No. 694 measuring 5 kanalas and 19 marlas of land situate in village Salwah Tehsil Mendar, and praying that his possession over the said land be restored. After drawing up the preliminary order as required by law, the Magistrate called upon the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 to file written statement accompanied by documents regarding their claim in respect of actual possession of the land in dispute. Pursuant to this notice the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 filed their statement of claim where after the parties adduced by putting in affidavits, the evidence of some persons in support of their respective claims as regard the fact of actual possession of the aforesaid land.

(2.) ON the case coming up on December 8, 1972 the learned Magistrate observed that the affidavits filed by the parties were vague and laconic and were not helpful in deciding the question of possession on the date of the preliminary order within two months before that date, with which he was concerned. He accordingly allowed the parties an opportunity to produce and examine the deponents of the affidavits. Pursuant to this order the petitioner herein examined Pahalwan Khan, Sardar Khan and Munshi Khan. Respondent No. 1 did not produce any one of the persons whose affidavits he had filed.

(3.) ON a consideration of the material on the record, the trial Mag: vide its order dated September 28, 1973 came to the conclusion that the evidence of Munshi Khan and the revenue record produced in the case showed that respondent No. 1 herein was in cultivating possession of the subject matter of the dispute from Kharif 1969 to Rabi 1971. He accordingly declared the said respondent to be entitled to possession until evicted there from in due course of law. The land having been attached on October 5, 1971 and entrusted to a Superddar, the learned Magistrate directed the Superddar to restore possession of the land to the said respondent.