A Magistrate has the jurisdiction to restore possession to a party who has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed under Section 145(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

S.P. Singh J. –

Srimati Urmila Devi, wife of Shri Harishankar Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla Amgola, one of the quarters of Muzaffarpur town, has preferred this revision challenging the validity of the order dated the 25th of August, 1966, passed by Shri J.P. Sharma, a Magistrate of the First Class at Muzaffarpur in connection with a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure.

2. The order in question is with regard to restoration of possession to Srimati Renu Ghosh, Opposite Party No.2 over a piece of land with houses standing thereon bearing Holding Nos. 594 and 595 in Ward No. XII of Muzaffarpur Municipality. It is noticeable that the property in question has been the subject-matter of a prolonged litigation. Both these holdings comprised an area of 16 kathas and odd and there is one pucca and one kutch a house standing over a portion of these holdings. Admittedly, they belonged to Nirmal Mukherjee and his two brothers, sons of Ambika Charan Mukherjee. Urmila Devi, the petitioner, claims to have acquired one third interest which belonged to Nirmal Charan Mukherjee whereas Renu Ghosh, Opposite Party No.2, wife of Dr. A.K. Ghosh, Opposite Party No.1, claims to have acquired two-third share belonging to the other two Mukherjee brothers under different sale-deeds executed in the year 1962.

3. A dispute arose with regard to the possession over these properties between Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 on one side and Opposite Party No.3, Rajendra Prasad Singh, a relation of Urmila Devi, on the other. As there was likelihood of a breach of peace on account of this dispute, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mazaffarpur, on the 8th of June, 1962 on receipt of police report. On the 30th of July, 1962 that proceeding was converted into one under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This proceeding terminated on the 30th January, 1964 in favour of Dr. Ghosh and his wife Renu Ghosh who were the First Party to the proceeding. Rajendra Prasad Singh, who was the Second Party, preferred a revision to this High Court (Criminal Revision No. 278 of 1964). That Criminal Revision was dismissed on the 1st July, 1966 by a Division Bench of this court. Only three days after the disposal of the Criminal Revision by this court, Krishna Devi, the mother of the petitioner, filed a suit for partition on the 4th July, 1966 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur and prayed for a temporary injunction against Renu Ghosh and others. It is said that she died on the 24th August, 1966 and the present petitioner Urmila Devi was substituted in the place of her mother. The prayer for temporary injunction however, was rejected by the Subordinate Judge. On a petition filed by Srimati Renu Ghosh, Opposite Party No.2, the aforesaid order for her being restored to possession was passed by Shri J.P. Sharma, a Magistrate of the First Class, on the 25th August, 1966. It is against this order that the petitioner has come to this court in revision.

4. Shri Balabhadra Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the order in question which amounts to delivery of possession, is bad because such a cause is not envisaged in any of the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His further argument is that the order in question was passed by a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to pass it inasmuch as he was neither the Magistrate who had passed the final order in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor was he the successor in office of the Magistrate who had disposed of the proceeding. Lastly, learned Counsel's contention is that the petitioner Urmila Devi not being a party to the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not bound by the order in question.

5. In support of his first contention learned Counsel has placed reliance on the observation of the S