RUDI Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned District Magistrate, Alwar recommending that the order of the learned Extra Magistrate First Class, Alwar, dated the 21st of November, 1953, attaching the well in dispute be set aside. When the case was pending in revision in the court of the learned District Magistrate, an application was made on behalf of Rudia and others (hereinafter to be referred to as the applicants) that the order of attachment be not given effect to pending the application for revision made by him. THIS application was rejected by the learned District Magistrate on the 30th of December, 1953, and against that order too the applicants have come in revision to this Court. THIS revision is No. 21 of 1954. As the said revision is an off shoot of the revision in which reference has been made,. I have heard both the cases together and they are being disposed of by this single judgment.

(2.) TAKING up the reference first, it was argued by Mr. G. L. Yadav supporting the reference that the case was under sec. 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in such a case an order of attachment cannot be made. It was argued that provisions of sec. 145 have been made applicable to a case under sec. 147 only as far as may be. As there is no dispute about possession of property in proceedings under sec 147 and no order can finally be made with respect to possession in such a case, no order under sec. 154 (4) for interim attachment can be made. Reliance has been placed upon the cases of M. N. M. Chelliah Pillai vs. Ramiah Thevar alias Ramalinga Thevar (l) and Eralil Mathi Jacob vs. K. Ravivarman Thirupad (2 ). It was argued that this order of attachment is being interpreted by the learned Magistrate as meaning that the applicant has been restrained from taking water from the well pending the proceedings under sec. 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code and this is creating unnecessary hardship to the applicants.