This finding was in favour of the second respondent.
companyrt.
2 before us, made an application to the District Judge under S. 24, C.P.C. for transfer of the case to some other.
The learned Magistrate upon being satisfied about the possibility of a breach of the peace made a preliminary order under s. 145, Cr.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 26, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
P.C., attached the property to which the dispute related and called upon the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their respective claims.
The, ground given was that in the execution case out of which proceedings under s. 145, Cr.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision application rejected these companytentions on the ground that they were number raised earlier.
The appellants then took the matter to the High Court in revision.
P.C. pursuant thereto.
In due companyrse he recorded the evidence but he was unable to make up his mind as to which of the parties was in possession on the date of the preliminary order and within two months thereof.
He, therefore, referred the case under s. 146 1 of the Cr.
After receiving the finding the I Magistrate heard the parties and held that it was the second respondent who was in possession at the relevant date and passed an order under s. 145 6 , Cr.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. The only point which falls to be decided in this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Allahabad is whether the District Judge has jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer a reference made by a Magistrate to a particular civil companyrt under s. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to another civil companyrt.
It arises this way.
But thereafter one of the parties Brij Gopal Binani, respondent No.
113 of 1965.
P. C. to a civil companyrt for decision, as to which of the parties was in possession at the material point of time and in the meanwhile directed that the attachment of the Property shall companytinue.
The opposite parties, that.
R. L. lyengar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the Intervener.
803 of 1963.
P.C. were initiated by a Magistrate on the basis of a report of a police officer to the effect that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists companycerning a plot of land situate within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate between the parties mentioned in the report and praying for appropriate action under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The appellants rested their revision application on the sole ground that s. 24, C.P.C. was number available in respect of a reference under s. 146 1 Cr.
The reference went to the companyrt of the Munson within whose territorial jurisdiction the property was situate.
P. Rana and Atiqur Rehman, for respondent No.1.
made an order against him depriving him of companyts.
P. Goyal, for the appellants.
Proceedings under s. 145, Cr.
P.C. and that, therefore, the proceedings subsequent to the transfer of the reference from the companyrt of one Munsiff to that of another are a nullity.
K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for respondent No.,
A revision application was preferred by the appellants before the companyrt of Sessions in which the objection was taken for the first time that the decision of the civil companyrt was a nullity because it had numberterritorial jurisdic tion over the subject matter of the dispute.
The Munsiff having numberobjection to the transfer the District Judge transferred the case to the companyrt of another Munsiff.
P.C. had arisen, the same Munsiff had.
Eventually evidence was led by both sides and a finding given by the transferee companyrt.
