ORDER :- The facts giving rise to this application are that a case under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was pending between Nihaluddin on the one hand and Ahmadi Begum etc on the other, in the Court of the S.D.M. Sadar, Gorakhpur. During the pendency of the case the disputed properties consisting of agricultural holdings, groves, trees and bazars etc. were attached and were placed under the supurdgi of one Ram Rekha. By his order dated 3-5-1965 the S.D.M. found that Smt. Ahmadi Begum was in peaceful possession of the disputed properties. Accordingly he ordered the release of the attached properties in her favour.

2. Admittedly a case under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (as it stood before its amendment by U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958), was pending between the parties in which there was a dispute of title pertaining to the properties in question. Accordingly the Consolidation Officer had referred the question of title for determination to the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, who, in his turn, had referred it to the Judicial Officer. Bangaon, at Gorakhpur, who was the Arbitrator appointed by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 37 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act Hence the present applicant obtained an order of injunction on 3-5-1965 from the said Arbitrator to the effect that Ram Rekha Supurdar shall continue as such and would not deliver possession of the attached properties to any party. The above order bearing the seal and signature of the Arbitrator was received by Ram Rekha Supurdar at Gorakhpur in the afternoon of 3-5-65 (Ext. Ka 1). The said Supurdar reached back his village at about 5 P.M. the same evening (3-5-65). It appears that armed with a copy of the order of release dated 3-5-65 passed by the S.D.M. Sadar in favour of Smt Ahmadi Begum, her Pairokar went straight to the police station on the evening of 3-5-1865 and took with him S.I. Tej Pratap Singh (opposite party No. 1) to the village in order to obtain delivery of possession of the properties on behalf of the lady. It is noteworthy that the robkar of release had fixed 10-5-1965 for its return to the SDM after compliance. The Sub-Inspector had also taken with him constable Mohar Dutt Pandey, when he went to village Karmoha Buzurg, where the disputed properties are situate. The party reached the village at about 7 p.m. The Sub-Inspector stopped in a grove at the outskirts of the village and sent his constable to the house of Ram Rekha Supurdar situate in the neighbouring Khuthan.

3. From this stage there is considerable difference between the versions of the petitioner and the opposite party. According to the petitioner, Ram Rekha Supurdar had shown the injunction order of the Arbitrator (Ex. Ka. 1) to constable Mohar Dutt Pandey but had expressed his inability to hand over possession of the properties to anybody. The Supurdar is alleged to have shown the said order to S.I. Tej Pratap Singh as well about two hours later, when he met the Sub-Inspector in the grove where he was camping. The case of petitioner further is that in spite of the restraint order of the Arbitrator having been shown to the constable and the Sub-Inspector, the latter proceeded with the paper transaction of delivering the properties to the Pairokar of Smt. Ahmadi Begum, though in point of fact no actual possession was delivered to him. The allegation of the petitioner, therefore, is that S.I. Tej Pratap Singh (opposite party No. 1) had committed contempt of the court of the Judicial Officer, Bansgaon (Arbitrator) by flouting his order of injunction dated 3-5-1965.

4. On the other hand, the case of opposite party No. 1 is that when his constable Mohar Dutt Pandey met Ram Rekha Supurdar at his house, the latter did not show him any order of the Judicial Officer (Arbitrator), nor orally informed him about it, nor met him in the grove or any where else that evening. The respondent's case further is that when constable Mohar Dutt Pandey returned to the grove and informed the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document