M. K. Chawla, J. (Oral ).

( 1 ) PETITIONER have challengedthe correctness of the order of the learned Sub-divisionalmagistrate dated 14-1-1985, whereby a direction was issuedto the S. H. O. Police Station Kamla Market to deliver Jackthe possession of the disputed room in premises No. 5285,ajmeri Gate, Delhi, to the respondents.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties agree that in the present proceedings initiated by the respondents u/s. 145 of thecode of Criminal Procedure before the learned S. D. M. Kotwali, Delhi, the petitioners were proceeded ex parte anddeprived of their right to participate, examine and cross-examine the witnesses. Can this fact by itself, be enough toset aside the finding of the court below in the exercise ofpowers u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by thiscourt. Learned counsel for the respondent, to start with, hasraised two-fold objections to the maintainability of the revisionpetition; inasmuch as all the parties are not before the Courtand that the petitioners should have approached the courtwhen they were proceeded ex parte. Both these preliminaryobjections being highly technical are even otherwise devoid ofany substance. In the first instance, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document