MADHUSUDAN MISRA Vs. BAIDYANATH MOHANTY
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
R.N.MISRA, J. -
(1.) MEMBERS of the first party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assail the final order in the proceeding against them in this revision application.
(2.) ON 23.3.1968, the proceeding was initiated by drawing up the preliminary order. Notices were served at the spot under directions of the learned Magistrate as required under sub -section (3) of Section 145 of the Code. Originally there were two parties. On 11.6.1968, one Narayan Mohanty appeared and wanted time to file his written statement. The learned Magistrate did not recognise him as a party to the proceeding and called upon him to establish his interestedness in the dispute of possession of the disputed property. On 25.10.1968, one Biswanath Barik applied to be impleaded as a party. The learned Magistrate also directed him to establish his interestedness. On 9.12.1968, the learned Magistrate impleaded Narayan and Biswanath as members of the third party. On 1.3.1969, one Krushna Chandra Pratihari claimed possession of part of the property, but took no further steps in the case.
The preliminary order of the learned magistrate showed only two parties. Narayan and Biswanath, who were subsequently added and treated as members of the third party were not shown in the preliminary order by its amendment. The dispute related to several plots under different khatas. The first party claimed the entire disputed property while the second party No. 8 laid claim to Ac. 1.86 1/2 out of plot No. 10 in khata No. 393. Narayan, the third party member claimed 80. 1/2 decimals in all under the same khata No. 393. Biswanath whom the learned magistrate in the final order treated as the 4th party laid claim to 82. 1/2 decimals in khata No. 395.
(3.) THE first party contended that the disputed property was of the village Koth and the management had devolved upon one Madhusudan Misra. The second party No. 8 who alone contested in the proceeding confined his claim to Ac. 1.86. 1/2 as stated above. According to him, he had purchased this property from several marfatdars under a sale deed dated 2.1.1967 and he had been in possession from that time. The third party claimed that he was an auction purchaser in Court auction and had obtained delivery of possession through Court in regard to the 80. 1/2 decimals claimed by him. The 4th party claimed that his father was one of the recorded tenants in respect of khata No. 395 and on his death he was in possession on payment of rent of the area claimed by him.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.