Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) RAM Singh, Daryao Singh, Pritam Singh, Gugan Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Dalbir Singh and Joginder Singh, respondents Nos. 3 to 9 had taken 954 kanals 7 marlas of land situated in village Guhna, tehsil Kaithal district Kurukshetra, on lease from Jit Gir respondent No. 10 for a period of 20 years, which was scheduled to expire in Rabi, 1973. On 3rd April, 1972 i.e. about 14 months prior to the expire of the lease, Jit Gir executed a new lease -deed in favour of Ram Dhari etc., the petitioners, it is alleged by the petitioners that they came into possession of the land in pursuance of the lease deed executed by Jit Gir. It is further urged by them that the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 fell in dispute with them and that they moved the police authorises on which proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 were started in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, on 19th June, 1973. The learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate attached the property in dispute on 10th July, 1973 and appointed the Tehsildar, Kaithal, as receiver, to whom the possession of the land, in dispute was delivered on the same day. Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 filed a revision petition against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, for getting it order of attachment; quashed bit it was later on withdrawn.
(2.) HOSHIAR Singh and Ram Singh respondents had filed two suits Nos. 243 and 244 of 1973 on 12th April, 1973, respectively, against the petitioners for permanent injunctions and obtained ad interim stay of their dispossession. The ad interim stay orders were confirmed on 15th June, 1973. It may also be mentioned here that these suits are still pending Ram Dhari etc., the subsequent lessees have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, pending in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, District Kurukshetra, on the ground that in view of the suits filed by respondents nos 3 and 7 which are still pending in the Court the proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 are without jurisdiction. They further requested that at the time the Tehsildar took possession of the land, they were in possession of the same as is apparent from the report dated 10th July, 1973 and therefore, the possession should be restored to them and that a direction to that effect be issued to the Tehsildar.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioners in order to prove the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute has mainly relied upon the report dated 10th July 1973 and urged that it is mentioned in this report that at the time of giving the possession, the crops of Ram Dhari son of Mangal and others were standing on the land in dispute.;