- (1.) G. D. Dube, J. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Jaunpur, refusing to implead the revisionist as a party.
(2.) THE facts of this case are very brief. On an application of Jai Prakash (opposity-party No. 10) and report of Station Officer, Police-Station Buxa, district Jaunpur, the Magistrate had passed a preliminary order dated 3rd August, 1988. On 30-8-1988, the revisionist had moved an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that he was owner and in possession over the property. He was away at Bombay to the proceedings under Sec tion 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the-Code) were initiated. THE learned Magistrate had dropped the proceedings on 13-9- 1988 on the ground that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. He released the property in favour of opposite-parties 2 and 9. THE applica tion of the revisionist for being impleaded was also rejected. It is worth mentioning that opposite-party No. 10 had riled a revision against the order of the Magistrate before the Sessions Judge. It was rejected. THE opposite-party No. 10 has filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge passed in the revision. The opposite-party No. 10 has challenged the propriety and legality of the orders of the Magistrate as well as the Session Judge. The opposite-parties 2 to 9 had contested the impleadment applica tion of the revisionist on the ground that he was not at all in possession and had no locus standi to become a party.
(3.) IT was argued from the side of learned counsel for the revisionist that in sub-section (5) of Section 145 of the Code, the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to implead a person. The lower court was only required to see that the person seeking impleadment was an interested person. Since the revisionist was saying that be was owner and in possession of the property, then it was sufficient to indicate that he was interested person. He had come to the court at the earliest opportunity as soon as he came to know about the initia tion of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties 2 to 9 urged that simply saying that the revisionist was owner and in possession was not sufficient. The proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code are of summary nature. Ihey are intended to avoid breach of peace in respect of certain property in dispute between the two parties. The revisionist had not shown that there was any apprehension of brsuch of peace between him and the other two parties.;