CHAHAT AND ANR. Vs. LALJI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge is the judgment dated 9.8.1989 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas. District Alwar remanding the case back to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarhbas second time under proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. The proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. are pending since the year 1972 because there appears to be no dispute that party No. 1 i.e. non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners in the revenue court in the year 1971 and even an ex-parte injunction order is said to be made on 21.9.1971. It was 3.1.1972 i.e. during the pendency of the revenue suit, it was party No. 1 who had filed an application u/s 145 Crimial P.C. and a preliminary order was made on 1.6.1972 and treating the case of emergency Tehsildar was appointed as receiver and Tehsildar took over the possession of the property in dispute. Later on the ex-parte ad-interim injunction in the said court said to have been confirmed in the year 1976. An appeal was filed by the petitioner herein against the order u/s 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and as such a revision is said to be pending before the Board of Revenue. The proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. cannot be allowed to proceed so long as they proceeded in this case for about 17 years. There had been remand of the case twice and so far as present judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is concerned which is under challenge, a reading of which will show that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge reminded the case second time only on the ground that khasra girdavari for svt. year 2025 in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 & 2 has not been considered. In my opinion the remand should be made by the court in case if cannot finally adjudicate the dispute and unless it is very necessary there should be no remand. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order of remand cannot be said to be justified. That apart the order of remand will mean that the proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. shall remain pending even after a period of 17 years and when the parties have already gone to the revenue court before the proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. were initiated. This court is taking a consistent view that in case the parties have gone to civil court for adjudication of their rights, it is civil court which alone should on approached by any of the party for any order of appointment of receiver or injunction.

(2.) In my opinion, therefore, in view of the pendency of the civil suit are the proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. pending since 1977 it will be abuse of the process of the court to allow the proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. in which proceedings the rights of the parties cannot be decided and can only be decided in the civil suit.

(3.) Consequently, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and I also order that the proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. should not be allowed to continue in view of the pendency of the revenue suit between the parties. I hereby quash the proceedings u/s 145 Crimial P.C. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to hand over the property in dispute to such of the parties from whom the possession was taken over by the receiver. There is no need to say that the rights of the parties will have to be decided by the revenue Court. Revision Petition allowed.