BAHALI SINGH Vs. SAFAYAT GOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision on behalf of the first party in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C., against whom an order has been passed on 7th August 1937, declaring that the second party are entitled to possession of the disputed lands.

(2.) The first party petitioner is the landlord who, having obtain, ed rent decrees in 1929 to 1931 against the tenants opposite party, proceeded to put the decrees in execution and after purchasing their holdings duly obtained delivery of possession in or about or up to 1931. The area covered by these execution proceedings was about 85 bighas of land. The present proceedings were started on 5 July 1937, because the tenants, who had been dispossessed, as stated above, claimed to be in possession of these very holdings on the ground that notwithstanding the delivery of possession, the landlord allowed the tenants to remain in possession of the entire lands as before and thereafter they used to make over half the crops on the batai system to the landlord petitioner.

(3.) The learned Magistrate has believed the case of the second party and declared them to be in possession as I have stated above. This is a finding of fact with which this Court ordinarily refuses to interfere; but there are certain circumstances which to my mind completely vitiate the findings of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate ought to have kept in view the off-repeated observation of this Court that it is the bounden duty of a Criminal Court to obey the orders of the Civil Court and to respect the dakhaldehani given by the Civil Courts. It is open no doubt to the Magistrates to take notice of events subsequent to the dakhaldehani and it is also true, as pointed out by my brother Rowland in Rajnandan Missir v. Cheddi Thakur A.I.R.1932. Pat. 185, that a Magistrate does not exceed his jurisdiction if he draws up proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., even though a recent writ of delivery of possession in execution of the Civil Court decree is produced by the opposite party but in such cases "it may be a decision so grossly erroneous that this Court would have no option but to interfere in revision".