- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar, Head Quarter Shree Madhopur, whereby revision petition filed by party No.2/respondent Nos.2 to 5 was allowed and order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shree Madhopur appointing Receiver on the disputed land was set aside. From the impugned orders, it appears that petitioner filed a complaint on 08.06.2009 in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shree Madhopur. The said Court directed the SHO, Police Station Shree Madhopur to make an enquiry and to submit report. Thereafter, SHO, Shree Madhopur filed a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against party No.1/petitioner and party No.2/ respondent Nos.2 to 5. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order to register the complaint and issued notices to both the parties for the purpose of hearing on the question of appointment of Receiver over the disputed property. On 28.07.2009, party No.2 appeared and sought time to file reply and case was adjourned for 06.08.2009, however, on that date Presiding Officer was busy in connection with some other official work, therefore, case was adjourned for 11.08.2009 and again on 13.08.2009 and on these dates also, the Presiding Officer remained busy in connection with some other official work. Thereafter, case was fixed on 18.08.2009, party No.2 moved an application for staying the proceedings, but the application was rejected and it was directed that reply be filed, however, case was taken up by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on the same day at 04.30 p.m. and without waiting for reply of party No.2 and without hearing them, passed an order, whereby Tehsildar, Shree Madhopur was appointed as Receiver and fixed the case for recording evidence on 17.09.2009. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 18.08.2009, party No.2 filed a revision petition. Learned Revisional Court considered the matter and came to a conclusion that impugned order appointing Receiver has been passed without waiting for reply by party No.2 and without hearing them and consequently, set aside the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and remanded the matter back to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate for passing fresh order with regard to appointment of Receiver, after hearing both the parties. Being aggrieved with the said order, party No.1 has preferred this revision petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in setting aside the order dated 18.08.2009 and in remanding the matter for passing fresh order to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, whereas three dates were given to party No.2 to file reply, but they failed to file reply, therefore, there was no illegality in passing the order appointing Receiver by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, therefore, impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge i.e. Revisional Court may be set aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and examined the impugned order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shree Madhopur and I find that facts mentioned by the Revisional Court in its order are absolutely correct. The Sub Divisional Magistrate remained busy on 06.08.2009, 11.08.2009 and 13.08.2009 and case was fixed for 18.08.2009 and on that date, party No.2 moved an application for staying the proceedings. The Revisional Court has observed that an application was filed by party No.2 stating therein that they want to move an application before the Collector for transferring the case from the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, however, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate rejected the application on the same day and granted time to file reply up to 04.30 p.m. and thereafter without waiting for reply of party No.2 and in their absence, passed an order, whereby Tehsildar, Shree Madhopur was appointed as Receiver over the disputed land.
(3.) AFTER considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the learned Revisional Court was absolutely justified in setting aside the order dated 18.08.2009 and in remanding the matter to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shree Madhopur for passing fresh order, after hearing both the parties, in respect of appointment of Receiver over the disputed land. I do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order impugned passed by the Revisional Court so as to interfere with the same. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ;