Amar Saran, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Hari Om Khare, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the order of the Additional City Magistrate, IIIrd, Meerut dated 9.7.1993 was in the applicant's favour. However, IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut by the order dated 21.9.2000 has allowed the criminal revision and set aside the order passed by the City Magistrate, IIIrd, Meerut and handed over possession of the property to the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and had gone into questions of fact, which have properly been decided by the Lower Court. Furthermore, had should he not have handed over the property to the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 by the order dated 21.9.2000, but at the highest he ought to have remanded the case to the City Magistrate for reconsidering the matter, in case he differed from the findings of the City Magistrate. A civil suit is pending between the parties, in which an interim order was passed by the IIIrd A.C.J.M.(S.D.) Meerut on 7.12.1998.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 has raised certain objections about the maintainability of this application under section 482, Cr. P.C., I think these objections are too technical. Substantively, if a case is made out by the opposite parties, the label of the petition is not important.;