- (1.) Leave granted. Heard the counsel on both sides.
(2.) We do not propose to go into the entire controversy. Suffice to state that the Executive Magistrate exercising the power under Section 145 Ss. 9 (1 of the Criminal Procedure Code was unable to decide as to who was in possession of the disputed premises on the date of initiation of the proceedings under Ss. (1 of Section 145. Therefore, he passed an order on May. . , 1994 attaching properties and directing the parties to go to the Civil court and establish their rights since there is dispute as to possession, though not for titleto possession, existing as on that date. The Executive Magistrate is justified to pass that order even though suit for injunction had been filed by the appellant.
(3.) Since the said order was passed when the Civil Suit No. 48 of 1994 was pending in the court of Shri N. K. Kaushik, Sub-Judge, the High court held that the Magistrate should have held back his hands pending decision in the suit. This court by the order dated 13/6/1994 suspended the operation of the High court's order and passed the following order : "The order made by this court on 6/6/1994 shall continue to operate. The learned Subordinate Judge, before whom the proceedings are pending, is directed to dispose of the pending interlocutory applications before the end of July 1994 in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. "at the hearing it was brought to our notice, that Sub-Judge dismissed the said suit on 13/7/1994 but the respondent has filed the Appeal No. 178 of 1994 which is pending in the court of Senior Sub-Judge.;