N.N.Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 18-11-1982 passed by Sri B. B. Agarwal, learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad who allowed Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1982 preferred by opposite parties 2 and 3 and set aside the order dated 6-8-1982 of City Magistrate, Moradabad attaching the property in dispute under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Case No. 97/11 of 1982.
(2.) IT appears that dispute relates to plot no. 20 measuring 0.78 decimal situated in Peerzada street of Moradabad City. On 18-6-1982, Harish through Abdul Gafoor and Chhuttan, who are alleged to be his Mufchtar-a-am, applied in the court of City Magistrate, Moradabad for action under sections 145/146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the said land against Vakil Ahmad and Jamil Ahmad. Learned Magistrate Invited report of S. O. Katghar. He also recorded statement of Sri Jiya Nand Sharma, the then S. O. Katghar on 22-6-1982 and was satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of peace and so after considering the nature of dispute and likelihood of breach of peace, recorded a preliminary order requiring the parties concerned to put-in their written statements about their respective claims. As the learned Magistrate considered the case to be one of emergency, so he attached the subject of the dispute under section 146 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter was carried-up to the revisional court by opposite parties 2 and 3 The revision was allowed by Sri B. B. Agarwal, learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad on 18-11-1982 who held that these proceedings were not maintainable. It was Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1982. Learned Judge found that although the order of attachment was not revisable yet the proceedings were liable to be quashed as it was a composite order. He pointed out that in an earlier proceeding about the same property, possession of Vakil Ahmad and Jamil Ahmad had been up-held. No appeal or revision was filed against that order. That order was binding on all concerned. Thus, he allowed the revision by the impugned order.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It was conceded before me on behalf of opposite-parties, that interlocutory order recorded by learned City Magistrate, Moradabad on 6-8-1982 was not revisable. The point is well covered by Indra Deo Pandey v. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, 1981 ACrR 173= 1981 ACC 371 which posited :- "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 145, 146 (1), 397 (2)-Scope of Sec. 397 (2)-Interlocutory order-Meaning of-Order during pendency of proceedings under Sec. 145 attaching proporty is purely interlocutory order within the meaning of Sec. 397 (2)." Learned Sessions Judge has referred to the following rulings in support of his order, viz.; Inder Singh v. State, 1964 CrLJ 429, Jai Nath Pati v. Ram Lakhan Prasad, AIR 1929 Patna 505, Heta Padhan v. Banchha, 1968 CrLJ 336, Raghunath Behera v. Puma Chandra Mahanta, 1966 CrLJ 935, Raghunandan Pandey v. Kishin Mohan Singh, 1977 IC 1005, Parag v. Mst. Ram Dulari, 1943 CrLJ 459.;