Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) The second party, of a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), has preferred this revision whereas the members of the first party are opposite parties in this case. The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 4.9.2001 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 1C of 1991 whereby and whereunder the possession of the petitioner declared by the Executive Magistrate, Jamshedpur vide order dated 20.12.1990 passed in Misc. Case No. 1209 of 1981, has been set aside. On the basis of a report submitted by Sonari Police Station about the apprehension of breach of peace with respect to land in question having Holding No. 329B/A are 12' X 18' in Mohalla -Khuntadih, Sonari, a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code was initiated vide order dated 25.11.1981 against Chandra Mohan Lohar, the first party and Jagar Nath Pandit, the second party and after filing of their respective show causes, the said proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code vide order dated 23.1.1982. In the show cause filed at the instance of the first party, it was claimed that the land in question was recorded in the name of Chhabilal Lohar and after his death his widow Sukurmoni inherited the same. The first party was inducted as a tenant by the original landlord but after his death, Sukurmoni inherited the property and her only legal heir Govind Lohar entered into an agreement for sale of the land in question to the first party and put the first party in possession and since then has been coming in possession of the land in question and the second party has got no right, title or interest and possession over the land in question. On the other hand, the case of the second party, as it appears from his show cause that Chhabilal Lohar was the landlord and after his death, Sukurmoni his widow, inherited the said property but the first party never came in possession of the land in question on the basis of the said forged deed i.e. agreement for sale rather the fact is that the second party purchased the land in question on the basis of the power of attorney executed in favour of Archna Singh wife of Ajay Singh by the sole daughter of Sukurmoni namely Josmi and the possession was delivered to him. The land in question was purchased in the name of the wife of the second party namely Rajkishori Devi on 20.12.1984 and since then the second party has been coming in possession over the land. Both the parties were directed to adduce their respective evidence i.e. oral as well as documentary in respect of their claim. The court of Executive Magistrate after hearing both the parties and examining the evidences on record declared the possession of the second party over the land in dispute by order dated 20.12.1990 and restrained the first party from going over the land holding that both the parties have admitted the title of Sukurmoni but the first party has claimed to be in possession on the basis of the deed of agreement prepared and executed in his favour by Govind Lohar, son of Sukurmoni while the second party has claimed the land in dispute on the basis of the sale deed executed by the one Archna Singh, an attorney holder of the daughter of the said Sukurmoni.
(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the first party preferred a Criminal Revision No. 1C of 1991. The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur after hearing both the parties and examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record vide impugned order dated 4.9.2001 set aside the order of the revisional court and held that the case is remanded to the lower court of Executive Magistrate with direction to pass fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of the order keeping in view the fact as to whether there is still any existence of apprehension of breach of peace between the parties and also to decide the factum of possession on the basis of the material available on record and if the court feels it necessary, should make local inspection of the land to come to the positive conclusion of the possession of the parties of the proceeding. Hence, the present revision by the second party.
(3.) It appears from the record that while admitting this revision application, notice was issued to the opposite party and the operation of the order dated 4.9.2001 was stayed vide order dated 29.1.2002 but subsequently on an interlocutory application filed at the instance of the petitioner that the opposite party No. 2 -Chandra Mohan Lohar died during pendency of this revision application on 20.7.2005 his name was deleted and his heirs and legal representatives were impleaded as a party and vide order dated 14.6.2012 notices were issued for their appearance but as nobody appeared on behalf of those substituted legal heirs steps for substituted services i.e. publication of notice in widely circulated Hindi Newspaper was taken and even after the news which was published in Newspaper none of the substituted heirs and legal representatives ever appeared in this case. Thereafter, this revision was heard in absence of the opposite parties.;