S VIVEKANAND SAGAR Vs. DADI BEE
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THESE proceedings are initiated to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in M.C.No.B/256/85 on the file of the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows: One Bheeshmacharyulu purchased the property in question namely 260 square yards of site situated at Premnagar, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad under a registered document No.1533/71. For the purpose of convenience, the same will be hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed property'. It appears that the said Bheeshmacharyulu died in the year 1975 while his widow died in the year 1988. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that one Siddiqui, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent purchased the disputed property under an un-registered document date 6-10-1974 and eversince, Siddiqui during his lifetime and subsequently respondents 1 and 2 have been in possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right. While so, in view of the disputes between the parties, respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No.979 of 1984 on the file of the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Of course, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said suit was filed for an injunction simpliciter, while it is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the said suit was filed for a declaration of title and for injunction. In the said suit, the respondents 1 and 2 being the plaintiffs, filed I.A. No.343 of 1984 for injunction, an ex parte interim injunction was granted and the same was confirmed on contest. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.134 of 1984 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1 and 2 preferred a C.R.P.on the file of this Court, which was dismissed. At this juncture, it is to be noted that while the C.R.P. was pending before this Court, the impugned proceedings namely M.C.No.B/256/85 was initiated by the Special Executive Magistrate. As such, the petitioner filed proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings alleging that the matter was already taken seizure of by a competent Civil Court. This Court was pleased to dismiss the proceedings initiated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with an observation that the petitioner was at perfect liberty to bring to the notice of the Special Executive Magistrate about the pendency of O.S.No.979 of 1984 and the orders passed in C.M.A. No.134 of 1984. After the dismissal of the said proceedings initiated under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed an application before the Special Executive Magistrate to drop the proceedings in view of the pendency of O.S.No.979 of 1984. Since the said application was dismissed, the petitioner has approached this Court. Sri P. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has already taken seizure of the matter, the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not warranted. To substantiate his contention, he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri vs. State of U.P.1 Thus, it is to be seen that long before the impugned proceedings were initiated before the learned Special Executive Magistrate, respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.979 of 1984 on the file of the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and injunction, wherein the question of possession has necessarily to be gone into. Since the matter was already taken seizure of by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, it is not desirable that the matter be once again agitated before the learned Special Executive Magistrate. In the said circumstances, the revision case is allowed quashing the impugned proceedings initiated in M.C. No.B/256/85 on the file of the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.