The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo order of the Civil Court and preventing abuse of the court's process in land dispute cases.

M. M. Ponchhi, J.

1. This is a petition under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in order to challenging an order passed by the Sub Division Magistrate, Patiala, whereby, on initiation of proceedings under sec. 145 of the Code, he passed an order under sec. 146 (1) of the Code, and appointed a receiver ordering to take possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner challenged that order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in revision who dismissed the same taking the view that the order was interlocutory and hence not revisable. Even otherwise, he took the view that the order was not worth being interfered with in revision.

2. Parties counsel are agreed that the receiver has not taken possession of the land in dispute. Parties counsel are also agreed that there; exists an order of the Civil Court for maintaining the status quo between the parties and the same was passed in their presence. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that it is the petitioners who are in possession of the land in dispute. In the same manner the learned counsel for the contesting respondents (legal heirs and representatives of Maghi Ram deceased) asserts that it is the respondents who are in possession of the land.

3. Two dates are relevant. The order status quo regarding possession was passed by the Civil Court on 21.1.1982 in the presence of the parties and the order appointing receiver was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 243.1982. In other words, the said order tantamounts to disturbing the order of status quo and tends to drive the parties, whosoever dispossession, of the property in dispute. In this view of the matter passing of an order under sec. 146 of the Code would tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court Preventative measures to prevent breach of peace and preserve public tranquility, would well have been taken by binding down the parties under sec. 107 of the Code. Such steps the learned Sub Division Magistrate can even now take suo motu if the circumstances so warrant. So, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain:

4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed, leaving it open to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law.