( 1 ) RULE. Learned Advocate Mr. B. M. Gupta for Respondents No. 1 to 3 and learned APP Mr. K. P. Raval for respondent No. 4 State waive service of rule on behalf of the respective parties.

( 2 ) IN this Revision, this court is called upon to examine the scope and jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate under Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the propriety of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, under Section 146 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for attachment of the property.

( 3 ) AS per the brief facts of the case, present petitioner No. 1 Parvatiben is the widow of Ramsinh Rajput and petitioner No. 2 - Lilaben is the daughter of Ramsinh Rajput. Opponent No. 1 Parulben, is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 1 i. e. widow of Rajendrasingh Rajput, a deceased son of petitioner No. 1. There is a property, i. e. a shop No. 9 in Nirav Shopping Centre on the ground floor, which is situated at Final Plot No. 106, T. P. Scheme No. 7, near Old Railway Crossing, Khokhra, Ahmedabad. It is the case of the present petitioner Parvatiben that his late husband Ramsinh Rajput had purchased the above mentioned property by a registered document, and thereafter, since the husband of petitioner No. 1 Ramsinh Rajput died, the petitioners were doing business in the above mentioned shop. On the record, the son of the petitioner and the husband of opponent No. 1 Rajendrasinh Rajput was also there because he was in joint possession. Thereafter, son of the petitioner No. 1 and husband of opponent No. 1 Rajendrasinh Rajput also died on 20/11/1997, and thereafter, opponent No. 1 tried to interfere in the possession of the shop, which was in the possession of present petitioners. It appears that some criminal complaints have been filed between the parties. A Civil Suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 4356 of 1998 has also been filed by the present petitioners against the present opponents in the City Civil Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants against any transfer or alienation of the said shop, restraining the defendants from interfering in the enjoyment of possession of the suit shops by the plaintiffs i. e. the present petitioners and for other reliefs. The City Civil Court was pleased to grant an interim stay in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants i. e. present opponents from transferring or alienating the said suit shop, in any manner. However, no ad interim stay appears to have been granted sofar as possession is concerned. As against this, it is the case of the opponents that the husband of the opponent No. 1 Rajendrasingh Rajput i. e. son of petitioner No. 1 has taken defence that the said shop, in fact, has been purchased by deceased Rajendrasinh Rajput, husband of opponent No. 1 from the owner, i. e. the trustees of Vora Family Trust, vide Registered document dated 17. 01. 1996 vide Index No. 156. Thereafter, the possession of suit shop and ownership are with opponent No. 1. As per the case of opponent No. 1, her late husband Rajendrasinh Rajput was doing business in the name and style of "meenakshi Construction" in the said shop and opponent No. 2 Bhagwansahaya Kaniyalal, in association with her late husband Rajendrasinh Rajput was doing business in the name and style of "mona T. V. Centre" and opponent No. 3 Devendrasinh Amarjet was having a STD PCO booth in the said shop and even after the death of Rajendrasinh Rajput, the business in the name and style of `mona T. V. Centre and STD PCO Booth were continuing.

( 4 ) IN the above mentioned set of facts, the present petitioners after filing the above mentioned suit in the City Civil Court, preferred one Application before the Executive Magistrate, bearing 23 of 1998, under Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the said application, it was stated that the present opponents intended to encroach upon the possession of petitioners and, therefore, an Enquiry under Section 145 is required