M.L. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C, has been directed against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Kotputli dated 5 -7 -75. In order to appreciate the controversy it would be worth while to state the facts briefly.
(2.) ON 11 -7 -74 Sua Lal presented a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of certain land situate in village Khadap District Jaipur which he alleged he had purchased from one Kishore Singh a year ago on 11 -7 -73. He alleged that he also obtained possession, but the opposite party, Nanchu and others were trying to take forcible possession of the same. He prayed that a preliminary order be drawn and the land be attached. The learned Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated 11 -7 -74 appointed the Naib Tehsildar as a receiver. The receiver took possession of the land on 12.7.74. The opposite party filed the written state rent on 12 -7 -74 that they had purchased the land on 1 -5 -64 from Mst. Bhanwar Kanwar mother of Kishore Singh who was then a minor. They claimed that they were in possession of lend and Sua Lal had also filed a suit for possession against them. The order of attachment made on 11 -7 -74 was ex parte. They also filed affidavits in support of their case.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate after considering the affidavits end the documents produced by the parties made an order that the opposite party were in possession of the land for the last 11 years which was sold when Kishore Singh was minor. When be grew up. then, he disowned the sale made by his mother and he mace another sale in 1973 in favour of Sua lal which led to the dispute, When the receiver took possession, the learned Magistrate as rendered in English further recorded that. I have reached the conclusion that there did not exist on the date the preliminary order was made any such dispute between the petitioners and the non petitioners as was likely to cause immediate breach of peace and as made it necessity that the aforesaid lard should be attached. The learned Magistrate therefore, then vacated the preliminary order under Sub -section (5) of Section 145 Cr.PC. and directed that the receiver should deliver the possession of the land to the opposite party.;