B.J. Shethna, J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed this revision petition against the Judgment and order dated 10.1.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Sessions Judge, Nagaur camp at Didwana in criminal revision no. 28/93, whereby, the learned Judge accepted the revision petition No. 28/93 filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and set aside the order dated 22.7.93 passed by the learned S.D.M., Didwana in case no 25/84 (18/91).
(2.) There is a chequered history of civil and criminal proceedings between the parties. The dispute is going on between the parties since 1984. The proceedings filed under Section 145 Cr.PC. came to be terminated by learned S.DM. on 16.11.94. However, the learned S.D.M. while dropping the proceedings ordered an enquiry to be held to find out who was in possession. Pursuance to that enquiry the learned S.D.M. passed an order dated 22.7.1993 and order that possession of property in question be handed over to the present petitioners. Pursuance to the said order the possession was actually handed over to the petitioners on 23.7.1993 as averred in para 5 of this petition. Aggrieved of that order the respondent no. 2 to 4 filed revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur, who by his order dated 10.1.1997 allowed the same and reversed the order passed by the learned S.D.M. on 22.7.1993 and ordered that the possession be handed over to the respondents no.2 to 4 Aggrieved of that order the petitioner's have filed this revision petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Garg for the petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in exercising his revisional jurisdiction in favour of the respondents no.2 to 4. He submitted that learned S.D.M. has given sound reasons for handing over the possession to the petitioners after making due enquiry in the matter. He also submitted that the reasons assigned by the learned S.D.M. were not discussed by the learned Judge in his order. He submitted that learned Sessions Judge could not have allowed the revision petition by substituting his own reasons. He submitted that the learned Judge has exceeded in his jurisdiction and allowed the revision petition. He, therefore submitted that this Court may allow this revision petition and set aside the order passed the learned Judge allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and restore the order passed by the learned S.D.M. As against that learned counsel Shri Mehta for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 vehemently submitted that learned S.D.M. was wrong in passing the order of handing over the possession to the present petitioners. He submitted that learned Sessions Judge has therefore, rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction and set aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M. and ordered to hand, over the possession to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 Learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and submitted that this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as no error of law is committed by the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4. Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the particular a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute. Proviso to Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police office or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1).;