Decided on December 20,1982

Amara Lakhman Appellant
Shah Rupshi Merag Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



- (1.)The Trial Magistrate had directed the Police Inspector, Jamnagar to seize the goods and seal the immovable property in dispute. Petitioners got a decree in a suit filed in 1971 against the Respondent No.1 restraining him from disturbing their possession of the disputed property. That order was confirmed upto the final stage. On 28-4-1980 Respondents 1 and 2 tried to trespass over the suit property and hence the complaint under Section 497 I.P.C. Pending the trial an application was given by the complainant for seizing the goods of the Respondents 1 and 2 which were unauthorisedly placed in the said disputed property. The Magistrate passed the interim order and directed the Inspector of Police to seal the property and to seize the goods in the said property which belonged to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.)The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred Revision Application before the Sessions Court which came to the conclusion that the trial magistrate was wrong in restoring possession at an intermediate stage. The Sessions Court set aside the order passed by trial Magistrate and ordered that possession of the property and goods be restored to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-original complainant preferred Revision Application in the High Court.
(3.)In the instant case if one reads the order of the learned Magistrate, he has not restored the possession of the immovable property, to the complainant but he has only asked the police to seize the goods and seal the property and he had made it clear that final order would be passed subsequently. In that view of the matter reliance placed by Mr. Karia on the decision of AIR 1955 Saurashtra 41 would be misplaced and yet there is another hitch. Under the new Code there is a definite provision that revision application against an interlocutory order would not be maintainable at all. If the learned Magistrate had handed over the possession to the complainant before disposing the case at an intermediate stage that order would have been a nullity. But the learned Magistrate was clearly entitled to. pass an order under Section 451 for custody and disposal of property pending trial. That order was not revisable. Once again the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge if carried to its logical conclusion would run counter to the decree passed in civil suit which was confirmed upto the final stage. The respondents No. 1 and 2 accused would be placed in possession of the property under the order of the learned Sessions Judge regarding which they were specifically restrained from disturbing the possession of the petitioner.
Rule made absolute


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