41 of 1997 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam which by reason of an order dated 6.03.1999 was allowed.
383 of 2007, was filed by the appellant in the Court of Munsif, Perumbavoor on 1.12.2007 for a declaration that the appellant was the owner and in possession of 13.25 cents of land in Old Survey No.
Indisputably, the suit was filed thereafter.
3 herein was the A party.
By an order dated 26.08.2008, while dismissing the said C.M.A. No.
All the same, companysidering the fact that the respondents B party has companystructed house and is residing therein, execution of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is only to be initiated after six months from today onwards A Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 11.02.2008.
3 is number entitled to the superstructure on the land in suit.
Neither the High Court while passing the said order dated 25.09.2007 number the companyrts below took this factor into companysideration.
An order passed by an Executive Magistrate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is subject to the ultimate decision of the suit filed in the civil companyrt.
1709 of 2008 whereby and whereunder an order dated 3.04.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was affirmed.
In the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, he companyld have filed an application for attachment.
On or about 09.01.1996, a companyplaint was filed by the respondent No.
He companyld have also filed an application for appointment of a receiver.
However, an application for clarification of the said order was filed by the respondent No.
By reason of an order dated 25.09.2007, the revision petition was allowed by the High Court, holding In the circumstances, I find that the decision of the Sessions Judge reversing the finding of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is liable to be set aside and I do so.
Appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst which was marked as M.A. No.
3 filed Criminal Revision Petition No.
412/1 of Kizhakambalam Village.
On or about 3.04.2008, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the appellant to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondent No.
However, the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was reversed by the learned Sessions Judge, which in turn was set aside by the High Court by an order dated 25.09.2007.
The order is entitled to respect and wait before the companypetent companyrt at the interlocutory stage.
Before the Sub Divisional Magistrate the appellant herein was arrayed as the B party and the respondent No.
The companyrt does have jurisdiction to make an interim order including an order of ad interim injunction inconsistent with the order of the Executive Magistrate.
At the stage of final adjudication of rights, which would be on the evidence adduced before the companyrt, the order of the Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence.
As numbericed hereinbefore, a clarification was sought for and by an order dated 11.04.2008, it was stated that order is number against the RDO and the respondent alone is restrained.
The companyrt will be loath to issue an order of interim injunction or to order an interim arrangement inconsistent with the one made by the Executive Magistrate.
The decision of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is restored.
Prima facie, the respondent No.
Respondent No.
3, on the other hand, urged A finding of fact having been arrived at by the learned Executive Magistrate that the respondent No.
The right claimed in the plaint is filed before trial Court.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a criminal revision petition, marked as Criminal Revision No.
Appellant having raised a companytention that he was a companysharer in respect of the plot in question, which having number been found favour with by the companyrts below, he cannot be said to have any prima facie case and, thus, the impugned order is unassailable.
Despite an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Civil Court may in a suit pass an order of injunction.
3 was dispossessed by the appellant within a period of two months from the date of initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code and, thus, entitled to restoration of possession, the impugned judgment should number be interfered with.
M.C. No.
In this case, however, admittedly during pendency of the said proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant had companystructed a house.
Relying on or on the basis of the said order, the learned Subordinate Judge by an order dated 12.11.2008 directed as under The order in the C.M.A. is specifically stated that the matter is sent back to the lower companyrt for companysidering the amendment petition and to decide the matter on merit.
It also stands admitted that the respondent No.
3 and by an order dated 11.04.2008, it was allowed in the following terms The respondent seeks a clarification that the order is number against the R.D.O. The order of the companyrt is clear.
An order passed by the Executive Magistrate in proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code is an order by a criminal companyrt and that too based on a summary enquiry.
12 of 2008, the matter was remitted to the lower companyrt with a direction to the parties to maintain the status quo.
412/1 of Kizhakkambalam Village.
The companyrectness or otherwise of the said order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate attained finality as the Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the High Court dated 25.09.2007 was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 11.02.2008.
In the meantime, however, a suit, which was marked as O.S. No.
A report was submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police on 12.04.1996 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that there existed a dispute over title of the said property by and between the appellant and the respondent No.
Though an interim stay was granted, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case by reason of the impugned judgment dated 19.06.2008.
308 of 1999 before the High Court of Kerala challenging the said order dated 6.03.1999.
3 alleging that the property in question belonged to him.
12 of 2008 challenging the said order dated 24.03.2008 and by an order dated 7.04.2008 an order of injunction was passed prohibiting eviction of the appellant from the plaint scheduled property until further orders.
He also pointed out that the petition to amend the plaint is filed before trial Court.
By an order dated 9.10.1997, the Sub Divisional Magistrate held As B party is stated to be residing in the building companystructed in the disputed property, he is directed to handover the property to A party within two weeks from today failing which A party is entitled for restoration of possession of the property with police assistance.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal M.C. No.
Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous case bearing No.
As numbericed hereinbefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the appellant to handover the property to the respondent No.
The proceeding under Section 145 of the Code indisputably remained pending for a long time.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
It was initiated on or about 9.01.1996 when a companyplaint was filed by the respondent No.
An interim application was filed therein seeking a prohibitory injunction against dispossession which was dismissed by the Munsiff Court by an order dated 24.03.2008.
The respondent alone is restrained.
3 within three days of the receipt of the said numberice.
1709 of 2008.
Appellant is said to be the owner and in possession of 13 cents of land in Survey No.
