Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In the case of Imtiaz Ali v. Badruddin, (A. I. R. 1943 Oudh 410) (ubi supra), decided by the Chief Court, Bennett J. held :

"Where the civil Court which was seized already of the matter has disposed of it in favour of one of the parties to proceedings under Section 145, the proceedings under Section 145 should be set aside in revision. It will be open to the Magistrate, if he thinks necessary, to take proceedings against either or both parties under Section 107, Criminal P. C."

14. In view of the case law mentioned above, it seems to me quite clear that the learned Magistrate in the present case did not attach that importance to the decree for ejectment and the execution proceedings consequent upon it, which it was his bounden duty to do. After all when proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., are taken it is intended by the Legislature that the Court concerned would come to a finding as to which of the two parties is actually in possession. Such possession has to be protected. The party found to be in actual possession has to be maintained in that possession until such party is evicted therefrom in due course of law. Meanwhile all disturbance of possession is forbidden. If there has already been a decision by a competent Court, under which a right to possession has been declared in favour of one party or the other, that decision must be respected and maintained by the criminal Court.

17. It seems to me, therefore, that the learned Magistrate did not approach the evidence in this case from the proper point of view. This was particularly so in regard to the documentary evidence, namely the Dakhalnama filed on behalf of the applicants and the Khasra extract for 1357 Fasli filed on behalf of the opposite party. As I have said above, the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the effect of the decree and consequently of the Dakhalnama executed in execution of the decree for ejectment.

19. It seems to mo that, on the basis of the decree very recently obtained by the trustees of the waqf, whose Mukhtar-i-am was the applicant, prior to the institution of proceedings in the criminal Court under Section 145, Criminal P. C., the applicant must be held to be in possession. It may be noted here in passing that it is not the case of the opposite party that they obtained possession of the plots afresh after the termination of execution proceedings under which the decree-holder must be deemed to have obtained actual possession of the plots in dispute. I am unable to appreciate the significance of the word "formal" which has been repeatedly used by the learned Magistrate in connection with the execution proceedings in pursuance of the decree for ejectment.