JAGDEV SINGH Vs. HAZARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contends that there are mistakes patent on the record to the effect that the order of Hon'ble Ujagar Singh J. to the effect that the criminal miscellaneous challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, appointing a receiver in the proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, be decided along with the application for the appointment of receiver, was not taken note of. It is further contended that connected civil miscellaneous viz for vacation of the stay order in the criminal miscellaneous for quashing the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. etc. were not listed for hearing and they have not been disposed of Lastly, it is submitted that there are other sufficient grounds for reviewing the order dated 7-2-1989 passed in the civil miscellaneous No. 1550-CI of 1988, which was only a contempt petition. It is further contended that the impugned order has resulted in grave injustice and therefore, it is liable to be reviewed. In order to support his submissions, the applicant contends that in Regular Second Appeal No. 1701 of 1987 notice of motion was issued on 13-5-1987 and it was ordered that status quo be maintained. Subsequently; this appeal was admitted on 17-8-1987. Thereafter applications for vacation of stay order as well as for initiating the contempt proceedings were preferred The appellant further preferred civil miscellaneous Nos. 105-C and 394-C of 1988, seeking the appointment of a receiver. It is pointed out that a receiver was appointed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 21-12-1987 in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. PC. which order was under challenge in this Court. There was another Crl Misc. application No. 258 of 1988 preferred in this Court wherein vacation of the stay order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was sought. The Local Commissioner was appointed by this Court vide order dated 24-5-1988, to find regarding the possession of the land in dispute, at the spot, who reported on 30-5-1988 that, the assertion of the respondent having sown some crops on the land in dispute was false

(2.) IT is vehemently contended that since all the matters had been listed, this matter could not have been decided in the absence of the applications which were not listed With regard to Khasra Girdawaris, it is contended that Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, envisages that when to a Court, it appears just and convenient to appoint a receiver, the same should be appointed and the conduct of the parties is not a relevant consideration while determining the application for the appointment of a receiver

(3.) THE applicant claims that equity is in his favour as he is the owner of the property in dispute Not only this, the Criminal Court has appointed receiver and that order should be taken note of and rather should be confirmed as the order for appointment of a receiver by a Criminal Court being an interlocutory order, cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Resultantly, the Civil Court is left with no alternative except to confirm the order of the Criminal Court for appointment off the receiver. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant relies1 on Smt. Soma alias Sahib Kaur. v. Gumam Singh and Anr. , 1984 (2) C. L. R. 512. and Kartar Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Pritam Kaur and Anr. , 1985 (1) C. L. R. 338. In the alternative it is contended that in case the order of the criminal Court is accepted to be final, this application for appointment of receiver becomes infructuous