9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the facts are as follows : In respect of the property concerned the 1st Respondent had a dispute with Sharda Prasad and Shiv Kumar. The 1st Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 280 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Gyanpur on 10th October, 1990. It is not denied that this Suit was for declaration of title, possession and for injunction. On 10th October, 1990, itself an application for ad interim Order was made. An Order to maintain status quo, as on that date, was passed by the Court. According to the Appellant, on 10th October, 1990 itself the said Sharda Prasad and Shiv Kumar had executed a Sale Deed in favour of Smt. Prem Kali, who was the mother of the Appellant. According to the Appellant possession of the property was delivered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That Application was rejected by the S.D.M. on 13th September, 1991. Against the Order dated 13th September, 1991, a Criminal Revision was filed before the Additional Session Judge, Gyanpur. The said Criminal Revision was rejected by an Order dated 16th March, 1993. A Review Application was also dismissed by the Additional Session Judge on 11th May 1993. Thereafter the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were resumed. Statements of parties were recorded. In the course of her statement the 1st Respondent, inter alia, stated as under : The Civil Suit which has been filed regarding this land which is Suit No. 280 of 1990. In respect of the disputed land which is the subject matter of the suit an order for maintain statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision Application was allowed by the learned single Judge, who set aside the Order dated 9th June, 1999 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for resuming the proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The only ground on which the learned single Judge has set aside the Order dated 9th June, 1999 is that earlier an Application for dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code had been made and dismissed and that the Revision against that Order had also been dismissed by the Sessions Court by the Order dated 11th May, 1993. It was held that the Order 11th May, 1993 had become final between the parties and was thus binding. It was held that in view of that Order the trial court could not have accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage of final hearing. The learned single Judge of the High Court appears to have lost sight of this. The learned single Judge also failed to appreciate that the earlier Orders were passed on the footing that the civil proceedings related to different properties and were between different parties. Subsequently, when it became clear that the civil proceedings were in respect of the same properties and between the same parties even the factual position had changed. For that reason also the earlier Order would not be binding. The question then is whether there is any infirmity in the Order of the S.D.M. discontinuing the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The law on this subject-matter has been settled by the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our view Ram Sumers case is laying down that multiplicity of litigation should be avoided as it is not in the interest of the parties and public time would be wasted over meaningless litigation. On this principle it has been held that when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute, the parallel proceedings i.e. Section 145 proceedings should not continue. Reliance has been placed on the case of Jhummamal alias Devandas versus State of Madhya Pradesh Ors., reported in 1988 (4) S.C.C. 452. It is submitted that this authority lays down that merely because a civil suit is pending does not mean that pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate. In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed. The impugned Order is set aside. In our view, the S.D.M. was right in discontinuing the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The Order passed by the S.D.M. on 9th of June, 1999 is restored. Before we part it must be mentioned that in the impugned Order the High Court has passed strictures against the S.D.M. The High Court has also directed the District Magistrate to transfer the proceedings from the S.D.M. who passed the Order dated 9th June, 1991. In our view the strictures were uncalled for. We hope that in future the High Court would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
