PAKAMARAJA NAICKER Vs. CHIDAMBARA NADAR
LAWS(MAD)-1953-9-9
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 11,1953

PAKAMARAJA NAICKER Appellant
VERSUS
CHIDAMBARA NADAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Balakrishna Aiyar, J. - (1.) These are two petitions to revise a consolidated order made by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, in M. C. Nos. 36 and 38 of 1951 on his file, finding the respondents to be in possession of the property in dispute and under Section 145(6) placing them in possession thereof.
(2.) Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar, the learned advocate for the petitioners, took the preliminary objection that the entire proceedings before the Magistrate are void for the reason that no preliminary order as required by Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., was issued. Mr. Vaidyanatha Iyer, on the other side, replied that as a matter of actual fact orders under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., must have been issued because in a letter dated 22-9-1951, addressed by the Joint Magistrate, Bivakasi, to the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, suggesting that the case be transferred to the Additional First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, it is stated, "as it is anticipated a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace and the parties were served an order under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C. (sic)". Now no copy of such an order exists in the file. On a refrence made to the Additional First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, he reported "No separate orders under Section 145(1) , Cr. P. C, are available in the records received from the Executive Magistrate, at the time of the transfer of the case to this Court. The Executive Magistrate Sivakasi, who was subsequently addressed by me reports that no such orders under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., are available in the records of his office also." It is clear to me that no order under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., was actually issued because if it had been, the office copy of it ought to have been in the file. Besides, the copies served on the parties must have also been placed in the file and every one of these could not have been lost. The likelihood is that what the Joint Magistrate refers to as an order under S. 145 (1), Cr. P. C., is merely the notice dated 1-8-1951 intimating the parties that the petition under Section 145, Cr. P. C., stood posted to 2-8-1951 at Sivakasi for hearing. That is really not an order under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C,
(3.) Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar, for the petitioners, contended that the omission to issue an order under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., vitiates the entire proceedings of the Magistrate. In support of this argument he referred to the decision of Ayling J. in -- 'Subbarama" Aiyar v. Mariya Pillai', AIR 1914 Mad 78 (A), where the learned Judge observed oh p. 81: "On the other hand it seems to me "that the Magistrate's proceedings are void 'ab initio' by reason of his failure to comply with the requirements of Clause (1) of Section 145, Cr. P. C. This provides that where a Magistrate is satisfied that a dispute exists regarding any land or water or the boundaries thereof within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he shall record a formal order in writing setting forth the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the disputing parties to attend his court and file written statements. It is only in this way that proceedings under Section 145 can be initiated. The provision of law is imperative and failure to comply with it destroys the Magistrate's Jurisdiction." To the same effect is the decision of Burn J. in -- 'Mariasusai Udayan v. Mahamud Azzeezudeen Sahib', AIR 1936 Mad 824 (B). The learned Judge observed: ".... The decisions of this court so far tend to show that unless there is a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., the magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 145(6), Cr. P. C. These decisions I would say, with all respect, are correct for the reason which I have already indicated." That reason runs in these terms: "There was nothing to prevent the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate from drawing up a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr. P. C., on the date on which he decided that the case was one properly falling under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The importance of this is that the question of possession with reference to the date of the preliminary order (See Section 145(4), Cr. P.C.) and if there is no preliminary order the one question which the Magistrate has to decide cannot be decided.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.