JOSHI, J. - (1.) THE lands covered by Khasra No. 191, 590, 591,593,594, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 602 and 603 situate in village Bhamed, Tehsil Bairath, werein the Khatedari of deceased Shiv Prasad under Khata No. 149. Deceased Shiv Prasad is said to be grand-father of deceased Jagdish, the husband of Smt. Parvati. Smt. Parvati made an application under section 145 Cr. P. C. in the court of Sub-divisionl Magistrate, Kotputli, inter alia alleging that deceased Shiv Prasad and deceased Jagdish husband of Smt. Parvati resided together and both were cultivating the aforesaid lands. It was alleged in the application that Shiv Prasad being an old man, the lands in question were being looked after by the deceased husband of smt. Parvati. It has been further alleged in the application that even after the death of deceased Jagdish Prasad deceased Shiv Prasad used to reside with Smt. Parvati and after the death of deceased Shiv Prasad the aforesaid lands in question have been in continuous possession of Smt. Parvati and have been cultivated by her. It is further averred in the application that after the death of Shiv Prasad on 23rd Sept, 1970, the non-applicants Ghan-shyam and Krishan Kumar, who are father and son harboured an ill intention to forcibly take possession of the aforesaid lands from Smt. Parvati asserting that Krishna Kumar was adopted by deceased Shiv Prasad in his life time and by virtue of adoption the non-applicants were in possession of the lands in question. It has been alleged under this pretext the non-applicants are bent upon to take forcibly possession of the aforesaid lands in question from the applicant Smt. Parvati although her crops are standing. It is further averred in the application that when the applicant Smt. Parvati went on her lands to look-after her crops the non applicants quarrelled with her and threatened that she will be furnished off. She has further stated in her application that the non-applicants are wrongfully preventing her from harvesting her crop and thus there is every likelihood of breach of pleace on the part of the non-applicants. On these allegation Smt. Parvati prayed that her possession on the lands in question be declared and the non-applicants Ghanshyam and his son Krishna Kumar be bound down to be effect that they would not interfere with the possession of Smt. Parvati. This application was sent by the Sub-divisional Magistrate to the Station House Officer, Shahpura, for report. THE Assistant Sub-inspector had reported that here is a serious dispute relating to the lands in question between the parties. Upon the perusal of the report the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kotputli drew a preliminary order under section 145 (1) of the Cr. P. C. , and called upon the parties concerned to attend his court in person or through pleader on 12th of April, 1974, to put in written statements of their respective claims, as respects the facts of actual possession of the disputed lands. In compliance of this preliminary order notices were sent to the parties and both the sides submitted their written state-ments along with affidavits and documents in their possession.
(2.) THE learned Sub-divisional Magistrate perused the various documents submitted by the parties and after hearing the arguments and perusing the record, recorded a finding that from the evidence produced on the record neither of the parties have been able to prove their possession to the satisfaction of the court. Consequently, he attached the aforesaid lands and appointed Naib Tehsildar, Viratnagar, as the receiver of the aforesaid land and directed him to reach the spot at once and take the possession of the lands and make proper arrangements for the cultivation of the lands in question. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of attachment of the property and appointment of receiver on these lands non-applicants Ghanshyam and Krishna Kumar moved the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, in revision for quashing the order of the attachment and the order of appointment of receiver. The revision came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 30th January, 1975, holding that the impugned order is merely an interlocutory order and revision application is not maintainable against interlocutory order in view of section 397 (2) of the Cr. P. C. The petitioner Ghanshyam and Krishna Kumar being not satisfied with the order of the learned Sessions Judge moved this court in the first instance under Arts. 226 and 227 and under sec. 482 Cr. P. C. and prayed that the impugned order dated 26th January, 1975, of the learned Sub divisional Magistrate Kotputli and the order dated 30th January, 1975, of the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur be quashed and set aside. Lateron the application was moved on behalf of the non-applicants Ghanshyam and Krishna Kumar that his petition purporting to be under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constituticn of India and sec. 482 of the Cr. P. C. be treated as a petition under sec 482 Cr. P. C. only. The petition is accordingly being treated under section 482 Cr. P. C. The petitioner has been seriously opposed on behalf of Smt. Parvati widow of Jagdish Prasad. Mr. G. M. Lodha on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the order passed under section 146 Cr. P. C. by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kotputi is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, was competent to consider the revision petition on merits and having failed to consider the revision petition he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law. In this connection it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. were commenced and preliminary order was passed on 2nd of April, 1974, and notices were given to the parties concerned who were directed to produce statements of claims as well as documents and evidence, if any, with their written statements. The parties concerned produced the documents and the case was closed so far as the production of documents and affidavits was concerned. It is further pointed out by Mr. Lodha that the arguments were heard by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who after hearing the same came to the conclusion that the lands in dispute were not proved to be in possession of anyone and so the order of the Sub divisional Magistrate under section 146 Cr. P. C. part-takes the nature of final order and cannot be termed as a interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner was maintainable. On the other hand, Mr. P. N. Datt, on behalf of the respondent Smt. Parvati, has strenuously urged before me that the impugned order has not led to the end of litigation and is merely intermediatory step and, therefore, the order is nothing but an interlocutory one and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the revision application against the order under sec. 146 Cr. P. C. , as rot maintainable, in view of section 397 (2) of Cr. P. C. The principal controversy centres round the point as to whether the impugned order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate under section 146 Cr. P. C. is a final order or an interlocutory one. In this connection it will be useful to refer to some important cases which will be great assistance for this purpose. In Ram Chand Manjimal vs. Goverdhandass Vishindass Ratanchand the judicial Committee observed that the expression "final order" within the meaning of sec. 109 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is an order which finally disposes of the rights of the parties in relation to the whole suit. In Abdul Rehman vs. D. K. Cassim & Sons (2) the Judicial Committee observed that the expression "final order" within the meaning of sec. 109 A of the Code of Civil Procedure is an order which finally disposes of the rights of the parties in relation to the whole suit. In S. Kuppasami Rao vs. The King (3) the Federal Court held that the expression "final order" occurring in sec. 205 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, means an order which finally determines the points in dispute and brings his case to an end. Again in Mohammed Amin Brothers Ltd. , vs. Dominion of India (4) Mukherjee J, observed.- "the expression "final order" has been used in contradistinction to what is known as "interlocutory order. " If the decision on an undoubtedly be a final one, but if the suit is still left alive and has got to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could attach to the order. " In Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs. State of Bombay (5) a vital issue was decided by the trial court against the appellant and the order was confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Bombay. Against the order deciding the issue, an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court with certificate granted by the High Court under Article 132 and Article 133 of the Constitution and it was held that the appeal was not maintainable since the decision on the issue did not finally dispose of the dispute between the parties. In Mohanlal vs. State of Gujarat (6) it has been laid down that no single general test for finality of a judgment or an order can be laid down, the reason being that a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another, for final as to part and interlocutory as to part. Their Lordships further observed: - "generally speaking a judgment or order which determines a principal matter in ques tion is termed final. It may be final although it directs inquiry or is made on an interlocu tory application or reserves liberty to apply. In this very case it has been laid down that a test which applies in a civil case to determine as to whether an order is an interlocutory order or final equally applies for determining whether an order in a criminal proceedings is final vide S. Kuppsami Rao vs. The Wing. (supra)". In Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 24 it was observed under sec. 164 (3) at page 241 as under: - 'while the question as to what constituted a final judgment, is a subject of much discussion, for the purpose of an appeal it has been said that judgment is final whether it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. " In volume II of the Corpus Juris Secundum at page 85 it is mentioned that - "interlocutory, not final, provisional, temporary. The term is opposed to definitive and has been contrasted with final. " In Jathanard and Sons vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (7) the Supreme Court has observed: - "an order is final if it lead to a final decision relating to the rights of the parties in dispute in a civil proceedings. If after the order the civil proceedings still remains to be tried and the rights in dispute between the parties have to be determined the order is not a final or within the meaning of Article 133. "
(3.) IN Central Bank of INdia vs. Gokul Chand (8) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that interlocutory orders are merely procedural and do not effect the rights or liabilities of the parties pending proceedings and that they are merely steps taken towards final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceedings. In M/s. Tarapora & Co. , Madras vs. M/s. V/o Tractors Export Moscow (9) their Lordships after survey of cases of Privy Council, Federal Court, and Calcutta High Court observed as follows: - "there is, therefore, abundant authority in support of the view that an order is final within the meaning of Art. 133 of the Constitution, under section 109 Code of Civil Procedure or Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, if it amounts to final decision on the rights of the parties in dispute in the suit or proceeding, if after the order is made the suit or proceeding still remains to be tried, and the rights in disputes have to be determined, the order is interlocutory. " In this case it was contended before the Supreme Court that the law laid down in cases decided by the Privy Council, Federal Court has been superseded in Mohanlal Thakkar's case (supra ). In Mohanlal Thakkar's case (supra ) after an inquiry under section 476 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a Magistrate ordered that a complainant be filed against a person in respect of offences under sections 205, 467 and 468 read with section 114 I P. Code. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge held that the complaint was competent only in respect of the offences under section 205 read with sec. 114. The High Court dismissed a revision application against the order of the Court of Session. In an appeal under a certificate granted by the High Court the majority of Judges of the Supreme Court held that the order passed was a final order within the meaning of Article 134 (l) (c) of the Constitution since the controversy between the parties whether the complaint in respect of the offences under sec. 467 and 468 read with sec. 114 I. P. Code was disposed of by the order of dismissal and the proceedings regarding that question was finally decided. It was further observed by their Lordships that the finality of the order was not to be seen by co-relating it with the controversy in the complaint namely whether the appellant had committed the offence charged against him therein. The Supreme Court repelling the contention raised or behalf of the counsel for the appellant, held that there is nothing in the decision of Mohan Lal Thakkar's case (supra) that the Supreme Court had departed that the principle of earlier decision or as suggested a different test for determining the finality of orders as the order of the High Court in that case would finally dispose of the proceedings of the Magistrate court relating to the exigency to institute criminal proceedings against the appelant. It was further odserved that the proceedings for filing a complaint under section 476 Cr. P. C. was a self contained proceedings and was finally disposed of by the order directing the filing of complaint under section 205 read with section 114 I. P. Code. The court further observed that the proceedings instituted on the complaint was not part of an order incidental to the proceedings for inquiry whether the complaint should be filed. Their Lordships further observed that in Mohanlal Thakkar's case (supra) the test laid down in S. Kuppusami Rao's case (supra) were approved. To the same effect is the view taken by the Supreme Court in Prakash Chand vs. Hindustan Steel (10 ). In Dhola vs. State (11) Chief Justice Beri, as he then was, after surveying the various authorities observed that an interlocutory order is one which is passed at some intermediate stage of proceedings generally to reach the final determination of the rights between the parties. In the light of the above decisions it is now to be seen whether the impugned order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kotputli, dated 25th of January, 1974, is a final order or an interlocutory one. In this connection it will be useful to examine the scope of sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. ;