SWETAMBER JAIN SAMPRADAY Vs. DIGAMBER AMNAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary point has been raised by Mr. N. P. Gupta learned Advocate for the non-petitioners that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 397 of Cr. P. C. (new ). For the disposal of this preliminary objection some facts need to be stated. They are as follows:

(2.) THE proceedings Under Section 145, Cr. P. C. (old) which started in the year 1973, were finally decided by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on Jan, 13, 198) and he held that on the date of preliminary order and within two months prior to it, the non-petitioners were in possession of the subject of dispute. The revision petition was filed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. who transferred it for disposal to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. It is given out that another revision petition has also been filed by non-petitioners and that too is pending decision in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara.

(3.) WHEN the revision petitions were pending in the court of learned Addi- vtional Sessions Judge, Bhilwafa, a re-Vision petition No. 143 of 1981 was also filed in this Court on April 9, 1981. A prayer was made in the revision petition that the revisions lying in the court of Additional Sessions Judge be also transferred to this Court and decided in acccordance with law along with the present revision petition.