HAZARILAL Vs. ADDITIONAL SENIOR SUB JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The non-petitioner no. 2 is a son of petitionerTs uncle Shri Ram Pratap He wanted to usurp the bus R.J.I. 2505 and permit under the pretext that under so called family arrangement the said bus No. R.J.I. 2505 and the permit No. CH/282 has fallen to his share. The Police Station, Rajgarh Petitioner and non-petitioner submitted applications under Section 451 Cr. P.C. ceased the bus for want of documents before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh. The interim custody of the said bus was given to non-petitioner No. 4. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order which is pending.

(2.) It is alleged that non-petitioner No. 2 filed a civil suit Banwari Lal v. Hazarilal and R.T.A Bikaner in the Civil Court of Hissar for mandatory and prohibitory injunction to the effect that bus No. R.J.I. 641/2505 which fell to the share of the plaintiff on the basis of family settlement arrived at Hissar on 5.7.1979 and the route permit No. CH/282 and the Registration Certificate which are in the name of defendant no. 1 is directed to get these documents transferred in the name of the plaintiff and also restraining from plying bus No. D.B.P. 936 on the aforesaid permit which he replaced on 26.11.1990 in place of bus No. 2055 and also to get the record from defendant No. 2. The court on 20.11.1990 passed an ex-perte order restraining the defendant from transferring his route permit and registration certificate to any other person and further restraining from replacing the vehicle till further order accept in accordance of law. Petitioner filed a written statement and submitted a reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 Cr. P.C. and it is alleged that petitioner also objected the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. However, on 14th June, 1991 if was observed By the trial Court that ex-perte injunction will also be applicable to defendant No. 2 i.e. R. T.A. Bikaner.

(3.) Against all these proceedings present writ petition has been filed. From the record it appears that even the application under Order 39 Rule 1 Cr. P.C. has not been finally disposed of by the trial Court.