- (1.) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of Calendar, the SDM Kapurthala initiated the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC against Jagjit Lal son of Chuni Lal (respondent No.2). He passed a composite order under Sections 145/146 Cr.PC, attached the land in dispute and appointed the Naib Tehsildar as its receiver, by virtue of order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure P1).
(2.) Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P1), the revision petition filed by respondent No.2 was accepted and the indicated order of SDM was set aside by the Sessions Judge (revisional Court), by means of impugned order dated 7.11.2009 (Annexure P2).
(3.) The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned order (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.;