S.M. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed by Dinesh Chander again -at the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur City, Udaipur, dated August 17, 1988 directing attachment of the shop (Garrage) situate at 16 Bhamashah Marg, Udaipur, and appointing the Station House Officer, Udaipur, as its receiver.
(2.) DINESH Chander claims to be the tenant of the shop and urges that Vijay Singh wants to evict him unlawfully from the said shop. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, maintains that Dinesh Chander is a trespasser and has forcibly occupied the garrage. Finding that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties the Station House Officer on July 22, 1988, filed a complaint Under Section 17, 116 & 145 Cr. PC in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur City, Udaipur. A preliminary order was drawn on July 23, 1988. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate by the order dated August 17, 1988, directed that the property be attached and appointed the Station House Officer as receiver Dissatisfied with this, the petitioner has filed the present revision in this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that civil proceedings in respect of the said shop are pending in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. In those proceedings the learned Munsif on the application of the petitioner passed an order on 4 -8 -1988, directing status quo to be maintained and subsequently, on December 8, 1988, after hearing both the parties issued a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with the petitioner in the said shop. Learned Counsel urges that when civil proceedings are pending and the regular civil court was seized of the matter the learned Magistrate ought to have stayed his hands. The Criminal Court are expected to respect and give regard to the orders of the Civil Courts passed in regular civil proceedings.
(3.) I find force in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. This matter had earlier came before N. C. Sharma, J. on January 4, 1989 The following order was passed on that date by Sharma. J. During the course of arguments, Mr. M M. Singh viurged that the petitioner was a tenant of non -petitioner No 2 in the disputed premises. It was pointed out that the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit against the non -petitioner No 2 for permanent injunction. In that suit a temporary injunction had been issued by the Civil Court on August 4, 1988, directing maintenance of status quo. The interim order was finally made absolute on December 8, 1988, and the non -petitioner No. 2 was restrained by temporary injection from interfering in the possession of the suit premises. Mr. Singh viurged that when the matter relating to the possession and tenancy of the petitioner relation to the premises in question is pending in a Civil Court has issued a temporary injunction. Against the non -petitioner No 2 the order. of the Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur City, dated August 17, 1988 appointing a Receiver over over the property in question should be quashed. Mr. M.C. Bhandari in his reply stated that non -petitioner No. 2 has filed an appeal before the District Judge, Udaipur against the order dated December 8, 1988, and that appeal is fixed for arguments on 20th January 1989. Since the order granting temporary injunction dated December 8, 1988 is subject matter of appeal before the District Judge, Udaipur who has obviously to examine the prima facie case of the petitioner, it would be better if this petition is heard after the District Judge, Udaipur, has decided the appeal filed by non -petitioner No. 2 against the order of the Munsif Udaipur City on December 8, 1988, granting a temporary injunction. Either of the parties will move this Court as soon as the District Judge decides the appeal and on their doing so, the matter may be listed at once for hearing and final disposal. In view of the nature of dispute between the parties it is hoped that the District Judge Udaipur will decide the appeal expeditiously.;