LexRAVI RAMAN PRASAD AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
;... RA VI RAMAN PRASAD AND ANR. A v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS FEBRUARY 2, 1993 [LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, CJ., K. RAMASWAMY AND B N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] )!" Code of Criminal Procedure, 1976: Sections 144, 145, 482-f'roperty restored to owner-Tenant restrained c from entering the property-Fresh applic'!tion by tenant rejected-Order be- coming final -On application by tenant High Court directing Police to take possession till disposal of 7itle Suit filed by him -Validity of. Respondent No. 4 was a tenant in a residential house owned by the appellants. He claimed that there was an agreement for sale of the property D to blm and in part performance thereof be continued in possession of the house and therefore be could not be evicted. An eviction suit filed by the appellants against Respondent No. 4 was decreed. In execution of the decree, the appellants were put in physical possession of the house with ,..I.. the aid of police force. Thereafter in a bid to take over possession of the E said house, Respondent No. 4 opened lire and the appellants lodged FIR with the police. Proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The proceed- ings ended In favour of the appellants, and Respondent No. 4 was restrained from entering upon the property. The Criminal Revision Peti- lion preferred by Respondent No. 4 was dismissed by the High Court. F .. ..>- Later, Respondent No. 4 again filed an application before the S.D.M. for initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. and the same was dismissed. Since this order was not challenged, it became final. Thereafter Respondent No. 4 filed a Title Suit. He also filed an G application under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court claiming the -l same relief as was claimed before the . S.D.M. The High Court in its judgment directed that the possession of the house shall be with the police .• till tbe disposal of the suit. The appellant's application for recalling the judgment was rejected by the High Court. Being aggrieved by the said H 393 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 1 S.C.R. A judgment , the appellants prefen-ed the present appeals. Allowing th• appeals, this Court, HELD : 1. The High Ccmrt failed to appreciate the crucial fact that the appellants were nqt put in possession of the property by the Sub- B Divisional Magistrate o~ the termination of the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. but had obtained actual physical possession thereof earlier in the execution of the eviction decree with police aid and the status quo was restored by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while disposing of the proceed- ing under section 144 Cr.P.C. and dismissing the application of respondent C No. 4 for starting a fresh proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. On the finding arrived at by him, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took the right step in restoring the possession of the property to the apJiellants, who had been for a temporary period restrained from entering upon the same. The application made by respondent No.4 under section 482 Cr.P.C. was thus a gross abuse of the process of the Court. [396D-F] D E 2. By virtue of an interim order of this Court the appellants have remained in possession of the house and they shall continue to do so until respondent No.4 obtains a decree in his favour in the pending suit and dispossesses the appellants in accordance with law. [396G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 213-214 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.91 ap.d 3.9.91 of Patna, High Court in Cr!. Misc. Jurisdiction Case No. 3064/91 (R) & Crl. Misc. F No. 1263 of 1991. G S.N. Sinha for the Appellants B.B. Singh and Ms. P. Khata (for Ms. Rani Jethmalani) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, CJ. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted. H 2. The dispute in the case relates to a residential house which • • RAVI RAMAN v. STATE OF BIHAR [SHARMA, CJ.] 395 admittedly belongs to the family of the appellants and was in possession of A respondent No. 4 as a tenant. The appellants and their father filed a suit for eviction impleading respondent No. 4 as a party, which was decreed. In execution of the decree the appellants were put in physical possession of the house with the aid of police force. The case of respondent No.4 is that there was an agreement for sale of the property to h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.