SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

D.N.BARUAH, R.K.MANISANA SINGH
Siddique Ali – Appellant
Versus
Md. Ali – Respondent


Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioners - S.N. Bhuyan, U. Bhuyan, Advocates.
For the Opp. Parties - B.P. Borah, T.R. Phukan, Advocates.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Baruah, J. - This Criminal Revision has been referred by the learned single Judge to decide the following questions:-

"Whether an order passed under section 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code attaching the land in dispute can be treated as an interlocutory order or not"

2. This has been referred in view of different views expressed in two decisions in Indrapuri Primary Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhabani Gogoi1 and Urikhimbam Kala Singh v. Takhell Lambam juginder Singh & Ors.2. In Urikhimbam Kala Singh (supra) Hansaria, J. held that an order of attachment under section 146(1) cannot be treated as interlocutory order and therefore revision would lie. On the other hand the recent decision reported in 1990 GHC-583 one of us (Manisana, J.) held that the order under section 146(1) is an interlocutory order and no revision lies under section 397(2) of the Cr. P.C. In this revision, we are therefore required to answer the reference. We have heard Mr. S.H. Bhuyan, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Borah, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

3. Section 146 is a part of section 145 under which a Magistrate declares possession of a party

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top