( 1. ) THIS is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973 (for short "the Code") filed on 31-8-1984 and directed against the order dated 28-8-1984 passed by the first Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal revision No. 4 of 1984 whereby he has set aside the order dated 9-12-1983 passed by the learned trial Court regarding delivery of possession of two rooms of the house in question situate at Ratlam, to the petitioner.

( 2. ) FACTS giving rise to the application are that the petitioner Punamchand is the son of deceased Bhimaji and Laxmibai is the wife of Punamchand. The non-applicant chandabai is the wife of his brother Heeralal. According to the petitioner the property in dispute forms part of an ancestral house belonging to deceased Bhimaji and is in joint possession of the parties. Following the report by the non-applicant No. 1 Mst. Chandabai, this disputed portion was taken possession of by the police during investigation. The contention of the non-applicant Chandabai is that the property in dispute was purchased by Mst. Kishi, wife of deceased Bhimaji for Rs. 800/- as long back as in 1958. In 1963, Mst. Kishi, then a widow, transferred it to her by a registered sale-deed.

( 3. ) THE non-applicant No. 1 Mst. Chandabai, in March 82 filed an eviction suit therein mentioning the petitioners wife Mst. Laxmibai as a sub-tenant and obtained an ex parte decree. Mst. Laxmibai challenged the judgment and decree by filing Civil Suit no. 272-A of 1982 and obtained an injunction on 27-2-1982 against execution of the said decree.

( 4. ) SUBSEQUENTLY on 23-4-1983, at 10. 00 a. m. , Mst. Chandabai lodged a report i with the police to the effect that during the preceding night at 1. 30 a. m. the petitioner, his wife Laxmibai and three others had committed offence under section 448 Indian penal Code in relation to the house in question and have taken possession of a portion thereof. It has been stated in the report that the petitioner had claimed that he has a share in the house. The report has given rise to the criminal case No. 1499/83 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ratlam which is pending at evidence stage.

( 5. ) IN consequence of another report made by Chandabai to the police, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 10-9-1983 passed an order in her favour. This order was quashed in revision.

( 6. ) IN view of the attempts by Chandabai to dispossess Laxmibai of the portion in her possession, the latter has filed another suit (Civil Suit No. 18-A of 1983) which too is pending. In the aforesaid suit an order dated 27-4-1983 has been passed to maintain status quo and the application for temporary injunction is still pending.

( 7. ) THE point for consideration is whether the application deserves to be allowed.

( 8. ) THE learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 urges that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code have to be very sparingly exercised and cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be invoked to set aside the impugned order which is interlocutory in nature. His contention is that the. petitioner Punamchand had been living separately for the last 40 years prior to the attempt made in 1983 for obtaining possession of a portion of the house in dispute. On the report lodged by Chandabai the police had sealed the house and subsequently Chandabai and Punamchand both applied for possession of the property. It is urged that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed a wrong order in favour of the petitioner which has been rightly revised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned order. According to the learned cousel for the non-applicant No. 1 the order regarding maintaining status quo passed by the Civil Judge has the effect of permitting the petitioner to enjoy the fruits of his crime for which he stands prosecuted (vide Criminal Case No. 1499 of 1983 ).

( 9. ) THE contention of the petitioners learned counsel is that the dispute in the instant case relates to immovable f