D. P. DESAI, M. C. TRIVEDI, J.

( 1 ) 14his matter comes before us on a reference made by learned brother N H. Bhatt J who found that as regards interpretation of sec. 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the Code) there is a conflict of opinion as disclosed from the judgment of the Bombay High Court and two subsequent judgments of this Court. In fact the learned Judge found that there is an inherent conflict between the two subsequent decisions of this Court also. All the three judgments are by the Single Judge. The facts leading to this revisional application may now be briefly stated. One Roshanbibi predecessor in title of the present petitioners had obtained a decree for possession of property against opposite party No. 1 who prior to the suit in which this decree was passed was a tenant of Roshanbibi. In execution of that decree actual possession was taken through the Court by Roshanbibi on April 18 1973 She remained in possession thereof thereafter. However on March 4 1974 when the property which is a house was locked was entered upon by opponent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (who will thereafter be referred to as the accused for the sake of clarity ). When Roshanbibi came to know

Click Here to Read the rest of this document