- (1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order of Sessions Judge. Bhilwara, dated 10-3-1971. passed in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 1970. arising out of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE facts which has led to this revision before me stated in brief are these : There is a Khasra No, 2 measuring 268 Bighas. 11 Biswas, in village Nilki-kheri, in Tahsil Mandalgarh. On a report by the S. H. O. . Police Station, Mandalgarh. proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P. C. were instituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhilwara. in respect of the aforesaid Khasra. The Samuhik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. . Mandalgarh (hereinafter called Party No. 1) alleged that the said Khasra has been allotted to it and it was in possession of the same. On the other hand, the respondents of the village Nil-ki-kheri alleged that they were in possession of the land. There was thus a dispute in respect of the said Khasra and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate being satisfied that there was likelihood of a breach of the peace drew a preliminary order under Section 145. Cr. P. C. and called upon the party to submit their respective claims as to their actual possession. On the same day. the Magistrate being satisfied that there existed emergency in respect of the likelihood of a breach of the peace, attached the said land. Both the parties in response to the notices submitted their respective claims as to their actual possession and also filed affidavits in support of their respective claims. After perusing the written statements and the affidavits presented on behalf of the Parties concerned, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Bhilwara. came to the conclusion that it was difficult for him to give a finding as to who was actually in possession of the disputed Khasra on the date of the drawing of the preliminary order or two months prior to the same. He consequently did not declare the. possession of any of the parties to the dispute but appointed Tahsildar, Mandalgarh as the Receiver of the disputed land till the parties concerned would get their title declared by a competent Court. The Party No, 1 felt dissatisfied with the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and, therefore, moved the Sessions Judge. Bhilwara. in revision and challenged before him the correctness of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Party No. 2, however, did not take any exception to the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. At the time of hearing of the revision by the learned Sessions Judge, it appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner before him to address in support of the revision petition. The learned Sessions Judge, however, after perusing the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, did not see any error in the said order and. therefore, confirmed the same and consequently dismissed the revision by his order dated 10th of March. 1971. The Party No. 1. the petitioner before me. did not feel satisfied with the order of the learned Sessions Judge and has therefore, come in revision to this Court. The revision application was presented on 14-61971. It may be recalled that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the final order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on 18-7-1970. The revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge was disposed of on 10th March. 1971. as already stated above.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the Party No. 2, the respondent before me. that the revision application is barred by time as the same was presented beyond a period of 90 days from the date of the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It was contended that the period of 90 days is to be calculated from the date of the order sought to be revised as prescribed by Article 131 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 (Act No. 36 of 1963 ). hereinafter called the New Limitation Act. Article 131 of the Limitation Act reads as under: 31. To any court forthe exercise of Ninety days The date of the decree its powers ofrevision under or order or sentence the Code of Civil Proce-dure, 1908 orthe Code of sought tobe revised, Criminal Proce-dure 1898. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the order sought to be revised occurring in column 3 of the said Article has reference to the order of the trial Court and if so considered, the revision petition presented to this Court is obviously barred by time. The decision on the preliminary point, therefore, rests on the interpretation of the expression "order or sentence sought to be revised" occurring in the column 3 of the Article 131 of the Limitation Act.;