ULAGAMPATTI SAVARINAYAGAM AND ORS Vs. KOIL PILLAIMANICKAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the B Parties in M.C. No. 19 of 1960 on the file of the Ex-officio First Class Magistrate and Assistant Collector, Dindigul, to revise the order passed by him under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The parties are close relations and the dispute is with regard to a church built on Survey No. 405, Old Survey No. 300/C1/B Line Street, Dindigul Town. The A party filed the petition M.C. No. 19 of 1960 on 31st August, 1960, under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The Ex-officio First Class Magistrate called for a report from the Sub-Inspector of Police and the report was submitted on 14th October, 1960 stating that there was a dispute between the parties and that there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace. Subsequently, the Ex-officio First Class Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and in pursuance of the order the petitioners filed a written statement pleading that the General Body of the Line Street Harijan Christians made over the Church and the properties to the Right Rev. Bishop of Trichirapalli by a registered deed of gift deed dated 11th October, 1960 and that after that date the actual possession and management of the said Church and the properties were exclusively with the Bishop. The learned Ex-officio First Class Magistrate considered the documents and passed an order on 12th May, 1961, finding that the A Party was in possession of the properties and that they should be allowed to continue in possession till evicted by law.

(3.) The main ground on which the petitioners seek to revise the order is that after they withdrew from the proceedings there could not be any apprehension of breach of the peace and that the learned Ex-officio First Class Magistrate should not have proceeded to pass the order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance was placed on the decision in Pakkiriya Pitted V. Official Receiver, West Tanjore,1936 MWN 209 in support of the contention. But that decision is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In that case the B party ceased to take any interest as the lease in their favour was cancelled by the Court, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeded to implead the Official Receiver and pass an order without further considering the question whether there was any likelihood of the breach of the peace. The following observations at page 725 in Kuddhiram Manial V. Jitendra Nath, 1952 AIR(Cal) 713 are apposite to the facts of the present case.