Back
1979 Supreme(Pat) 198
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha, J.
Batorani Mandalain
Versus
Ramdas Mandal
Criminal Revision No. 119 of 1979 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 31, 1979
Validity of order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is upheld as long as the parties actually before the Magistrate are concerned.
Headnote:
Revision - Possession Dispute - The court upheld the order of the Executive Magistrate declaring the possession of the opposite party in a land dispute, citing previous decisions that an order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is valid as long as the parties actually before the Magistrate are concerned.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought revision of the order of the Executive Magistrate declaring the possession of the opposite party in a land dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of the Executive Magistrate was valid and not fit to be interfered with, citing previous decisions that supported the validity of the order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: Dispute over possession of land, consideration of evidence, and involvement of other interested parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions that established the validity of an order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as long as the parties actually before the Magistrate are concerned.
Final Decision: The application for revision was dismissed, upholding the order of the Executive Magistrate.
R. P. Sinha, J.
1. -this is an application in revision by the petitioners who were the first party in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure against the order of the Executive Magistrate, Sahebganj, declaring the possession of the opposite party who were second party in the court below in respect of the land in dispute.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the lands in dispute were appertaining to plot nos.559 and 557 having an area of 21 bighas 15 khatas and 16 bighas 13 khatas and 9 dhurs respectively and the learned magistrate by the impugned order has declared the possession of the opposite party in respect of the entire land in dispute which the learned Magistrate should not have done. It has also been urged that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence on the record and so he has passed the impugned order declaring the possession of the opposite party in respect of the entire land in dispute. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been that besides the opposite party there were some other persons who were also entitled to the land in dispute and in their absence the possession of the opposite party alone should not have been declared and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is not fit to be maintained.
3. In reply to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to a decision in the case of ram Narayan Goswami and others V/s. Biswanath Goswami, (AIR 1959 Calcutta 366) where it has been observed that an order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not bad merely because all interested persons are not made parties. The order is valid so far as the parties actually before the magistrate are concerned. If the parties who are alleged to be necessary parties are not impleaded, they will not be bound by the order and nothing more. He has also referred to another decision in the case cf Bholanath Dhar and others V/s. Gour Gopal, (AIR 1953 Calcutta 777) where also it has been observed that an order under section 145 of the Code is not bad merely because all interested persons are not made parties. The order is valid so far as parties actually before the Magistrate are concerned.
4. In my opinion, the point raised on behalf of the petitioners has no substance in view of the decisions referred to above and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is not fit to be interfered with. The application accordingly fails and is dismissed. Application dismissed.
