- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Siya Ram, learned counsel for the revisionist. None appears for the opposite party.
(2.) IN proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held revisionist to be in possession of the dis puted land on the date of preliminary order. A revision was preferred against the judg ment and order of the S. D. M. and the revisional Court allowed the revision on the ground that the Civil suit relating to the same land was finally decided by the Civil Court and no appeal was preferred against the said judgment. The revisional Court set aside the order of the S. D. M. and quashed proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. . The order of the revisional Court is challenged on the ground that the revisionist was not party in suit No. 335 of 1985 and hence decree in that suit was not binding on him. That Civil suit was filed in the year 1985 and was decided on 17-7-87 whereas the dispute in the present case arose on 17-3-92, the date of preliminary order or two months next before the passing of the preliminary order. As regards the first ground, the revisional Court observed in its judgment that the revisionist filed certified copy of decree in suit No. 335 of 1985 Lallu v. Krishna and others in which permanent injunction was issued against the defen dants. The revisional Court also observed that original file of suit No. 335 of 1985 was summoned and perused and it was found that the land in dispute in suit No. 335 of 1985 as well as proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was one and the same. The revisional Court has given cogent reasons why decree of the Civil Court is binding on the revisionist. The revisional Court has also observed in its order that Munna the present revisionist did not explain as to how he came in possession of the disputed land since after passing of the decree in suit No. 335 of 1985. There appears no error or illegality in the judg ment of the revisional Court. Rejected. Revision dismissed. .;