They were passed before any evidence or statements had been recorded.
The said Criminal Revision was rejected by an Order dated 16th March, 1993.
The S.D.M. was bound to take a decision afresh based on the statements before him.
It was pointed out that the civil Suit was pending in the companyrt of civil jurisdiction and an Order directing maintenance of status quo had already been passed.
We have heard the parties at length.
The 1st Respondent claimed that the property which formed the subject matter of the civil Suit was different from the property in respect of which proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code had been adopted.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows In respect of the property companycerned the 1st Respondent had a dispute with Sharda Prasad and Shiv Kumar.
A Review Application was also dismissed by the Additional Session Judge on 11th May 1993.
After the statement of the parties had been recorded, an Application was made by the Appellant that the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code may be discontinued dropped in view of the pending civil Suit in which an order of maintenance of status quo had already been passed.
Those Orders were passed only on the basis of the companytentions of the parties.
Against the Order dated 9th June, 1991, the 1st Respondent filed Criminal Revision No.
Against the Order dated 13th September, 1991, a Criminal Revision was filed before the Additional Session Judge, Gyanpur.
The 1st Respondent filed Civil Suit No.
The 1st Respondent also admits that the Suit is for possession and for stay.
In respect of the disputed land which is the subject matter of the suit an order for maintain status quo has been passed The Civil Suit, I have filed in the Civil Court is for dispossession of Amrit Lal and Prem Kali from the disputed land.
It is number denied that this Suit was for declaration of title, possession and for injunction.
In the companyrse of her statement the 1st Respondent, inter alia, stated as under The Civil Suit which has been filed regarding this land which is Suit No.
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.
280 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Gyanpur on 10th October, 1990.
280 of 1990.
According to the Appellant possession of the property was delivered to Smt.
This suit has been filed for obtaining stay order against Sharda Prasad.
That Application was rejected by the S.D.M. on 13th September, 1991.
On 10th October, 1990, itself an application for ad interim Order was made.
1230 of 1999 before the Allahabad High Court.
By an Order dated 9th June, 1999, the S.D.M. dropped the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code by companycluding that there was numberpropriety in companytinuing the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code when the civil Court was in seisin of the matter and an Order for maintaining status quo had already been passed.
Prem Kali, who was the mother of the Appellant.
The Appellant thereafter made an Application that the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code be dropped as a civil Suit in respect of the same property was pending.
According to the Appellant, on 10th October, 1990 itself the said Sharda Prasad and Shiv Kumar had executed a Sale Deed in favour of Smt.
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.
In that Suit the pleadings are companyplete.
An Order to maintain status quo, as on that date, was passed by the Court.
The SDM had dropped discontinued the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In Suit No.
Issues have been framed.
Thereafter the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were resumed.
On the basis of this report, the learned D.M. passed preliminary Order under Section 145 1 Criminal Procedure Code.
Prem Kali on the same day.
The only ground on which the learned single Judge has set aside the Order dated 9th June, 1999 is that earlier an Application for dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code had been made and dismissed and that the Revision against that Order had also been dismissed by the Sessions Court by the Order dated 11th May, 1993.
Prem Kali, she was impleaded as a party defendant.
Statements of parties were recorded.
280 of 1990, on an application made by Smt.
The earlier Orders were interim Orders.
280 of 1990 had been filed.
LITTTTTTJ N. Variava, J. Leave granted.
While this Suit was pending the S.O. Police Station, Aurai made a report to the S.D.M., Gyanpur stating that there was a dispute regarding possession of land likely to cause a breach of peace within his jurisdiction and for initiating of proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code.
Thus the 1st Respondent admitted that the civil Suit was in respect of this land i.e. the land in respect of which proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code had been adopted.
This appeal is against an Order dated 8th September, 1999.
The suit is pending trial.
9th June 1999, passed by the sub divisional Magistrate.
Pursuant to this preliminary Order the Appellants mother appeared and filed a written statement stating that there was numberdispute likely to cause breach of peace regarding possession of the said property.
The 1st Respondent also filed a written statement pursuant to the preliminary Order.
