SHANTI KUMAR PANDA versus SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 03-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHANTI KUMAR PANDA 
v. 
SHAKUNTALA DEVI 
NOVEMBER 3, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 145 and 146-0rder passed 
by e:t:ecutive magistrate-Proceedings before competent court against such 
C order-Effect of-Held: Competent Court can pass an order of temporary 
injunction or arrangement inconsi.tent with the order of Magistrate or 
superseding it-While passing interlocutory order court should keep in mind 
existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury--
However, unsuccessful party should make out a prima facie case that findings 
of magistrate is without jurisdiction, palpably wrong or self lnconsistent-ln 
D the instant case, the proceedings under section 145 and 146 proceeded in the 
absence of interested party though she was the real person claiming possession 
and also title over the shop -Hence complainant directed to remain restrained 
from interfering with the possession of interested party over the shop . 
E 
. Words and Phrases : 
'Competent court' and 'until evicted therefrom in due course of law'-
Meaning of in the context of sections 145 and 146 of Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. 
There was dispute regarding shop premises. Appellant filed a 
F complaint whereupon the police officer filed a report before S.D.M who 
passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) and order ofattachment 
of shop under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. Respondent then filed an application 
for her impleadment as she was in peaceful possession of the shop. 
However, SDM did not implead her and held that the appellant was in 
G possession over the shop on the date of passing of the preliminary order 
as also in the two months prior thereto and directed that until the rights 
were determined by the competent court, shop be released in favour of 
the appellant. Thereafter, respondent filed revision petition which was 
dismissed. Respondent then filed suit based on title seeking permanent 
preventive injunction against appellant and also ad-interim preventive 
H 
98 
SHANTlKUMAR PANDA v. SHAKUNTALA DEVI 
99 
injunction to protect her possession over the shop. Civil Judge allowed A 
the application and restraining the appellant from interfering with the 
possession of the respondent over the shop. It was observed that the 
proceedings under sections 145 and 146 had proceeded in the absence of 
the respondent though she was the real person claiming possession and 
also title over the shop. Appellant filed an appeal. District Judge allowed B 
the appeal holding that as the proceedings under Section 145 have 
terminated in favour of appellant, issuance of order of injunction was not 
justified unless and until the order of SOM was superseded by a decree 
of Civil Court and that no injunction can be granted when disputed 
property is in custodia /egis. Respondent then filed a petition under Article 
227. High Court allowed the petition setting aside the order of the District C 
Judge and restored the order passed by the Civil Judge. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Appellant contended that an order of temporary injunction 
inconsistent with the order of magistrate under Sections 145 and/or 146 
of the Code or superseding it cannot be passed by the civil court; and that D 
under section 145(6) the Parliament intended to confer a binding efficacy 
on the Magistrate's order not only qua the parties to the proceedings but 
also qua all concerned to respect and abide by the order of the Executive 
Magistrate and such order and the possession of the successful party 
protected thereunder shall continue to survive and hold valid and good E 
unless at the final adjudication of civil rights the competent court has 
directed the party successful in proceedings before the Magistrate to be 
evicted, whence and whence alone that party shall lose possession and 
bound to hand over the same to the party successful in the Civil Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The law as to the effect of the order of the Magistrate 
under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of legal proceedings 
initiated before a competent court subsequent to the order is as follows : 
F 
(a) The words 'competent court' as used in Section 146(1) do not G 
necessarily mean a civil court only. 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 form

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