DHARAMPAL AND ORS . versus SMT. RAMSHRI AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DHARAMPAL AND ORS . 
A 
.:rt-. 
v. 
SMT. RAMSHRI AND ORS. 
JANUARY 7, 1993 
(P.B. SAWANT AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.) 
B 
-l 
Criminal Law: 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 
Section 14ir-Attachment Orde,._When comes to an end-Whether c 
Magistrate can withdraw the order when the civil cowt was seized of the 
mattel"-Determination of the rights of parties-Whether to be final for cessa-
lion of attachment order and its withdrawal. 
--< 
Sections 397(3) and 482-Second revision application by same D 
party-Whether could be enteTtained by High CouTt when the first appellate 
cowt has already rejected the first revison application-Whether High CouTt 
can exercise its jurisdiction when such exercise was specifically barred by the 
Code. 
There was a dispute between the appellants &nd the Orst respondent, E 
regarding the possession of a house. On an application filed by the 
respondent under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before 
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, claiming ownership of the suit property, 
the Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code, 
and thereafter, made an order of attachment under Section 146 directing F 
that the attachment would continue till. the competent civil court deter-
·, --y· 
mined the rights of the parties. On a revision filed by the appellants, the 
Sessions Judge granted an interim stay of Magistrate's order. Sub-
sequently, the Revision application was dismissed. The Magistrate passed 
a fresh attachment order under Section 146. Once more In revision the G 
Sessions Judge passed an order sta,Ying the fresh order of attachmenL 
Thereafter, the appellants filed a suit for permanent injuctlon and 
I 
also an interim injunction. The trial court dismissed the application for 
Interim Injunction. On appeal, the District Court lssned an Interim In-
junction against 1st respondent and her husband. Subsequently, the H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 1 S.C.R. 
A Criminal Revision preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Ses· 
sions Judge also on the ground that the civil suit was preferred by the 
appellant. Once again, the Magistrate passed another order attaching the 
property but Ibis third order of attachment was stayed by the Sessions 
Judge for a period of 15 days. 
B 
Thereafter, on an application by the appellants for withdrawal of 
c 
attachment on the· ground that there was no apprehension of a breach of 
the peace, the Magistrate order withdrawal of attachment. The Revision 
tiled by the ls! respondent against the Magistrate's order was dismissed 
by the Sessions Judge. 
On an application under Section 482 of the Code filed by Respon· 
dent No.1 for quashing the order withdrawing the attachment and for 
directing the attachment to continue, the High Court held that it was not 
open to the Magistrate to withdraw the attachment till the competent 
court had decided the matter finally and restored the attachment. Hence 
D the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The determination by a competent court of the rights of 
the parties spoken in Section 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 
E 1973, has not necessarily to be a final determination. The determination 
may be even tentative at the interim stage when the competent court 
passes an order of interim injunction or appoints a receiver in respect of 
the subject-matter of the dispute pending the final decision in the suit. The 
moment the competent court does so, even at the interim stage, the order 
F 
of attachment passed by the Magistrate has to come to an end. Otherwise, 
there will be inconsistency between the order passed by the civil court and 
the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate. The proviso to sub-sec· 
tion (1) of Section 146 itself takes cognizance of such a situation. When a 
civil court passes an order of injunction of receiver, it is the civil court 
G which is seized of the matter and any breach of its order can be punished 
by it according to law. Hence, on the passing of the interlocutory order by 
the civil court, there is no longer any likelihood of the breach of the peace 
with regard to the subject of dispute. Under Section 146(2) the Magistrate 
can withdraw the orde1· of attachment passed by him even during tl>e 
P.,ndency of the dispute .in the civil court. When the civil court appoints a 
H receiver, the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate necessarily 
·--
~· 
' 
--
, 
DHARAMP AL v. SMf. RAMSHRI 
3 
gives way to the order of the civil 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.