The pendency of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the Criminal Executive Courts to determine possession of land under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

M.M.Punchhi, J.

1. This is a revision petition against the revisional order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated February 24, 1988, in setting aside the order of the Executive Magistrate, Kaithal, dated June 26, 1987, and remitting the case back to him for redecision.

2. Parties are litigating under Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Kishan Chand, the respondent herein, initially moved the matter before the Executive Magistrate, Kaithal, seeking return of possession of his land to him, which possession, according to him had wrongly been delivered to Daryao Singh and others, petitioners herein, under an interim order of the Executive Magistrate passed in earlier proceedings between the parties under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and which proceedings had been quashed by the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated March 11, 1985. By virtue of that order. Kishan Chand respondent had been held to be in possession of the land. Criminal Revision No. 394 of 1985 of Daryao Singh and others against the said order was dismissed by this Court on March 19, 1985. The Executive Magistrate, in the instant proceedings, rejected the application of Kishan Chand respondent on June 26, 1987, mainly influenced by the fact that a civil suit was pending between the parties and that proper parties had not been made in the civil litigation. That suit was filed by Kishan Chand respondent, seeking a permanent injunction restraining Daryao Singh and others from interfering in his possession. For some reasons, the trial Court had to close the evidence of the Nachhatar Singh Kishan Chand and thus disposed of the suit accordingly. Kishan Chands appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, was dismissed on August 24, 1987. Now RSA No. 317 of 1988 is pending in this Court.

3. Mr. H.L. Sibal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, says that in the presence of the dispute having gone to the civil Court, the Magistracy is ousted of its jurisdiction to decide this matter under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention does not cut any ice. It is patent from the judgments of the Civil Courts, original as also appellate, that Kishan Chand respondent as a Nachhatar Singh was non-suited because he could not adduce evidence despite a number of opportunities given. It is true that he claimed possession over the property in dispute in that suit but his claim could not be decided on merits. In other words, the factual position was not determined by the Civil Court. The Criminal Executive Courts, on the other hand, are required to determine the question of possession apprehensive of breach of peace with regard to possession of land. And here undoubtedly that situation prevails despite the pendency of that Civil Courts litigation. In these circumstances, I do not think that the pendency of the dispute in the Criminal Executive Courts would be debarred by the sheer fact that civil litigation is also pending. In my considered view, the Additional Sessions Judge rightly exercised jurisdiction is allowing the revision petition and remitting the case back to the Executive Magistrate for re-decision in accordance with law.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.