Agni Kumar Das vs Mantazaddin - 1928 Supreme(Cal) 96

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1928 Supreme(Cal) 96

RANKIN, SUHRAWARDY, MUKHERJI, CAMMIADE, B. B. GHOSE
Agni Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Mantazaddin – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Rankin, C.J. - In this case an application in revision u/s 439, Criminal P.C., has been made to the Court against an order of 13th August 1927, made by the Deputy Magistrate of Comilla u/s 145 of that Code in proceedings instituted on 9th May 1927. A rule having issued and cause being shown before the Division Bench, a reference has been made to this Full Beach. Three points are formulated in the order of reference, viz.-

(1) Do the words "actual possession" in Sub-section (1), Section 145, Civil P.C., mean actual personal physical possession even though wrongful, e.g., that of a recent trespasser in actual physical possession at the time of the proceedings u/s 145.

(2) Does the word "dispute" in the same subsection mean actual disagreement existing between the parties at the time of the proceedings u/s 145 even though the question as to the right to possession has already been decided by a civil Court.

(3) Has the law been correctly laid down in the case of Ambar Ali Vs. Piran Ali and Others, AIR 1928 Cal 344 or in the case of Atul Hazra v. Uma Charan 20 C.W.N. 796 and Kedarnath Paramanik Vs. Hem Nath Karmakar, AIR 1923 Cal 176 .

2. By the rules of this Court (Ch. 7, Rule 5,