Sayeda Khatun v. Lal Singh And Others

Babu Sarat Chandra Chaudhri, for the applicant:—

The rights of the parties have been determined by a competent Civil Court; its decree has awarded to the applicant possession over the land and the standing crops. The Magistrate was not competent to go behind the decree; it was his duty to maintain it and give effect to it. He acted without jurisdiction in taking proceedings under section 145 calculated to modify or cancel the effect of this decree which was recently passed and in execution of which the amin had given the applicant possession only two or three months ago: Doulat Koer v. Rameswari Koeri , Baldeo Bakeh Singh v. Raj Ballam Singh , Kunja Behari Das v. Khetra Pal Singh (3), In the matter of Raja Leelanund Singh (4). The word “dispute” in section 145 means a bond fide dispute. The history of the litigation between the parties shows that now there exists no shadow or semblance of title in the opposite party. The “dispute”, or in other words, the real or supposed uncertainty of title, which existed at one time has now been settled once for all by the Civil Court. This places the matter beyond the jurisdiction of section 145: In the matter of Gobind Ghunder Moitra v. Abdool Sayad (5). Orders passed under section 145 are of the nature of tentative or interim orders, to have effect till the determination of rights by the Civil Court. No such orders need or can be passed where the rights have already been determined by the Civil Court. How can the Civil Court determine the same rights twice? The action of the Magistrate has rendered the Civil Court decree nugatory. The order being passed without jurisdiction can be revised.

Mr. D.B Sawhny, for the opposite party:—

Proceedings under section 145 are expressly excepted from the operation of section 435. Except on the ground of want of initial jurisdiction such proceedings cannot form the subject of revision by the High Court. The Magistrate was duly empowered to act under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There existed a dispute in fact, although it may be that none should have existed in law. So the Magistrate had jurisdiction to hold the inquiry and was properly seised of the case. The conclusion arrived at by him may or may not be correct, but that is no ground for revision. The arguments advanced by the applicant were considered in the case of Jhingai Singh v. Ram Partap . I rely on that case and also on the case of Maharaj Tewari v. Har Charan Rai .