GUR MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. S D M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO controversies are involved in this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr. P. C. and they are, as to whether once the parties have gone to civil or revenue court for adjudicating their respectful rights, whether it will he the interest of justice to allow parallel proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. and the other is that if the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. should not be allowed and cannot be allowed to proceed, whether it is open to the executive magistrate to order that the said property be attached u/s 146 Cr. P. C. or if attached should be handed over to any of the parties and if so to which of the party.

(2.) THIS is a case where it appears that the relations of the two real brothers are strained to the extreme and the dispute in this case relates to agricultural land in chak No. 32 BB. The said agricultural land is said to hate been recorded in the khatedari of non-petitioner No. 3 Gurpal Singh who is the real brother of the petitioner. There appears to be no dispute that a suit for division of holding of the agricultural lands is pending in the revenue court-Besides the aforesaid revenue suit, a suit for partition was also filed in respect of the movable and immovable property and it appears that in that civil suit No 29/85 the share of the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 3 has been declared as 1/3. The petitioner and non-petitioner No. 3 has one more brother A decree was made on July 23, 1989 It can, therefore, be said that even in respect of the disputed agricultural land a suit for partition is pending between the parties and it can hardly be disputed that any interim relief either for issue of an injunc-tion and appointment of a receiver can be obtained by either of the parties in that revenue suit. THIS Court has taken a consistent view that in case the parties have gone to a civil court to get their rights decided and civil or revenue suit is pending then it will not be in the interest of justice to allow parallel proceedings u/s 145 Cr. PC. to continue.

(3.) THE parties are directed to be present before the learned Sub-Divisional, Magistrate on October 16, 1989. .