D. C. SRIVASTAVAD, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Avani Mehta, learned Counsel for the revisionist on admission of this revision. The admission of revision is opposed by Shri Y. S. Lakhani appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. Shri K. C. Shah, learned A. P. P. , appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has also been heard.

( 2 ) THE order dated July 12, 2000 of the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar is under challenge in this revision. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions judge has set aside the order of the learned Executive Magistrate passed in proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on May 16, 2000.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and examining the judgments under revision, it can be safely said that the order of the learned executive Magistrate was not in accordance with law, and as such, it could be set aside by the Sessions Judge in revision.

( 4 ) THE first infirmity in the order of the learned Executive Magistrate is that, he did not pass any preliminary order as contemplated under Sec. 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned order shows that, for all purposes, it is an order under Sec. 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The indication from the order of the Executive Magistrate is that, he was unable to decide which party was in possession as referred to in Sec. 145 or he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was there in such possession of the subject of dispute, and as such, he approved the action of the police in attaching the property in dispute by putting the seal and directed the parties to maintain status quo till their rights are decided by the competent civil Court. Before passing this order, the learned Executive Magistrate should have followed procedures laid down in Sec. 145 (1) onwards. That was also not done by the learned Executive Magistrate.

( 5 ) IT may also be mentioned that, immediately on receipt of complaint the police Inspector rushed to the spot and on apprehension of breach of peace, immediately put a lock over the disputed property, and thereafter, he made a report to the learned Executive Magistrate. As stated earlier, the learned executive Magistrate did not pass any preliminary order. Shri Lakhani has brought to my notice the letter written by the learned Executive Magistrate disapproving the action of the police in putting the seal over the property without making reference to him. But, in the impugned order, which was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, he has approved that action.

( 6 ) THE question for consideration is, whether the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge requires interference, and if so, whether the revision requires admission for final hearing? For this, certain dates are material and certain facts have also to be kept in mind. The so-called proceedings under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated on April 7, 2000. Prior to that. Civil suit was filed on or after June 24, 1999 by Lalit Chandrakant doshi and Pankaj Suryakant Doshi against Shardaben Shah. In this suit, in Para 8 of the plaint, it was specifically averred that the necessity for filing the suit arose against the defendant for obtaining declaration, as well as permanent injunction. Relief was sought by the plaintiffs against the defendant restraining him from illegally dispossessing the plaintiffs and also from selling or transferring the disputed premises described in Para 2 of the plaint, which was alleged to be the properties in ownership of the plaintiffs forefathers, and thereafter, in ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. There is no dispute that a portion of the same property is subject-matter of the proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that suit, ex-pane injunction was sought, which was granted at the initial stage but was refused after hearing the plaintiffs and the defendant by the Civil Court on April 7, 1999. Misc. Civil Appeal was filed against the order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document