MADHO SINGH Vs. MST LADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Churu, dated October 22, 1973, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) ON October 22, 1973, an application was presented before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Churu, by Mst. Ladan widow of Khangsingh and Mst. Sajana widow of Dungarsingh. The latter is the mother -in -law of the former. The application was directed against one Madhosingh and it was unequivocally alleged that the field bearing khasra No. 223 measuring 35 Bighas and 9 Biswas situate in Rohi Dulrasar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu. was in their possession and was being cultivated by them. Exploiting the helpless condition of the two widows. Madhosingh was threatening forcible entry into the field and was declaring that he will take away the crop. This occasioned, according to the petitioners, an apprehension of a breach of the peace and the labourers of the widows deserted their work. It was also prayed that the property in question may be attached and a Receiver be immediately appointed. The application is signed by the counsel for the two widows and along with the petition two copies of the 'Jamabandi' from Samvat years 2027 to 2030 and 'Khasra Girdawari' for the Samvat years 2028 and 2029 were appended. After perusing the petition, the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate in view of the documentary evidence felt satisfied that there was imminent danger of a breach of the peace and he passed a preliminary order, attached the property the subject -matter of dispute and issued a notice to the opposite party Madhosingh to show cause and answer on 1 -11 -73. Dissatisfied with this order. Madhosingh has come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant's first submission is that the application without the affidavit substantiating the contents thereof was not enough for the drawing up of a preliminary order. Secondly, the application ought to have been signed by the parties concerned. In support of his submission he relies on Emperor, v. Munnilal. AIR 1935 Nag 78 and Ahsan Sofi v. Sona Mir, AIR 1958 J and K 17 : (1958 Cri LJ 635) (FB). The learned Additional Advocate -General appeared to support the order of the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate.