SHANKERLAL Vs. CHATURBHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Pali, in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. , and arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) IT appears that opposite party Chaturbhuj made an application on 22-10-1956, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali, alleging that Shankerlal and others (who are petitioners in this Court but were opposite parties in the Court of the Magistrate) were bent upon interfering with the possession of the former over certain land, which was described in the application, situate in village Undari, tehsil Bali, and that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. The magistrate passed a preliminary order on the same date and called upon the parties to put in their respective claims as regards possession over the land in controversy. Shankerlal and others resisted this application mainly on the ground that chaturbhuj had filed art earlier application in the same connection on 6-9-1956, which had been dismissed by the Magistrate on 25-9-1956, and, therefore, a second application under Section 145, Cr. P. C. , was incompetent. The Magistrate after having recorded the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that possession of the opposite party Chaturbhuj over the land in dispute was established at the date of the preliminary order, and in that view he declared him to be in possession of the land in dispute and forbade the present petitioners from interfering with such possession until Chaturbhuj was evicted therefrom in due course of law. Before proceeding further, it may be pointed out that the application dated 6-91956, was dismissed on 25-9-1956, because Chaturbhuj had defaulted in appearance on that date. The ground relating to the non-maintainability of the second application has found favour with the learned Sessions Judge, and, consequently, he came to the conclusion that Chaturbhuj's, second application on the same facts was incompetent and he has, therefore, made the present reference with a recommendation that the order of the Magistrate was illegal and should be set aside.

(3.) MR. Hastimal has appeared in this Court on behalf of the opposite party chaturbhuj to oppose the reference. The petitioner Shankerlal and others have not entered appearance in this Court. I have carefully perused the record and considered the question of law raised by the learned Sessions Judge, and have come to the conclusion that there is no force in this reference, and it must be rejected.