Further, the courts have to see whether the restrictions are in excess of the requirement or whether it is imposed in an arbitrary manner. As it is possible to act absolutely and even ex parte it is obvious that the emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave. An Order of status quo had already been passed by the competent civil court. On behalf of the Appellants it is argued that the High Court has erred in rejecting the contention of the Appellants that proceedings Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure have no bearing to the rent control proceedings. Prem Kali, she was impleaded as a party defendant. In this case the civil suit had been filed first.
Scheme for the Redressal of Public Complaints 17. We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed, Section 145 proceedings would never lie. In this case, the appellant was put in possession of the house with the help of police in execution of a decree of eviction. This criminal revision is so preferred by the sole petitioner Shri Motilal Upadhyaya against the judgment and order dated 30. . Accordingly, it is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under section 561-A of the Cr.
Prem Kali, she was impleaded as a party defendant. Therefore, the order is null and void. Supreme Court and was finally decided in the year 1987. Section 145 4 —Before passing any order under sub-section 4 the Court is required to enquire as regards the fact of actual possession of evidence to be adduced by the parties and if the Magistrate does not comply with this mandatory requirement then ex facie the order must be held to be adduced by the parties and if the Magistrate does not comply with this mandatory requirement then ex facie the order must be held to be illegal as in the instant case. The impugned order accordingly needs to be modified by way of keeping properties in custody of the receiver till such tine as the parties decide their respective title in a civil Court in accordance with section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The pure question of civil right is involved in this issue. The respondents in response to this order brought the present action on the ground that their right over the property was being violated by the order.
In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in law in dismissing the revision merely for the reason that the property was under attachment on the date of filing of petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973, and the Receiver was appointed in respect of the said property. L J 35 and Mst Zohra Bai alias Fatima Sughar v The State and another 1973 P Cr. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate. In our view this authority does not lay down any such broad proposition. A competent court is one which has the jurisdictional competence to determine the question of title or the rights of the parties with regard to the entitlement as to possession over the property forming the subject-matter of proceedings before the Executive Magistrate. For that reason also the earlier Order would not be binding. The proper use to be made of this section is to meet a temporary urgency or keep things in Status Quo and not to pass an order which has practically the effect of a mandatory injunction in favour of one of two opposing parties whereby he is able to deprive the other completely of his ordinary legal rights and remedies and that too finally for all practical purposes.
It is settled law that interim Orders, even though they may have been confirmed by the higher Courts, never bind and do not prevent passing of contrary Order at the stage of final hearing. In her statement the 1st Respondent admitted that proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were in respect of property which formed the subject-matter of the civil Suit and in respect of which an Order for maintenance of status quo had been passed by the civil Court. The unsuccessful party therefore must get relief only in the civil court. In the case of physical annoyance a certain degree of proximity between the object annoyed and the annoyance is necessary, but in the case of mental annoyance no question of proximity arises. Section 145 proceedings should not continue. Therefore, if the said procedure were not properly followed, the order made would then be deemed illegal. We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed, Section 145 proceedings would never lie.
The suit is pending trial. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are also complied with under this section. If the magistrate finds that dispute may cause danger to the society, then he can issue a notice to the concerned parties to maintain the peace. Merely because the High Court takes a different view is no ground for passing strictures against the lower court. For the above reasons, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. In Shanti Kumar Panda v.
And before proceeding under this section, the Magistrate should hold an enquiry and record the urgency of the matter. Statements of parties were recorded. Report on Jail Reform 24. Thereafter the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were resumed. Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in short crpc together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is likelihood of a breach of the peace because of a dispute concerning any land or water or their boundaries. This section is to be applied in cases of urgency and should not be allowed to take place of any other provision of law which might be more appropriate. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable.
Title of the property Sometimes, the dispute may arise about the title, ownership and possession of the property. The Criminal Revision Application was allowed by the learned single Judge, who set aside the Order dated 9th June, 1999 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for resuming the proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. The High Court has also directed the District Magistrate to transfer the proceedings from the S. Enhancing the Powers of Wafaqi Mohtasib 16. Improving the Performance of Pakistan Law Commission 22.
Fifth Report on Rent Restriction Laws and Draft Ordinance 6. The same is hereby dismissed. The said Criminal Revision was rejected by an Order dated 16th March, 1993. I hold that according to the above-said citation referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application Ex. In our view on the facts of the present case the ratio laid down in Ram Sumers case supra fully applies.