Bimla Devi vs Gopi Ram

Pritpal Singh, J.

This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Bimla Devi against Gopi Ram for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dated May 21, 1983, on ground that it is without jurisdiction.

A dispute existed between the parties concerning the possession of the property in dispute. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated in pursuance of this dispute. The Executive Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide an order dated May 19, 1983, passed an order for attachment of the property under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and appointed the Station House Officer of Police Station City, Bhiwani, as its receiver. Against this order Gopi Ram respondent filed a revision petition which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Taking cognizance of the revision the Additional Session Judge stayed the operation of the impugned order and issued notice of the revision to the present petitioner Bimla Devi. Against this order dated May 21, 1983, the present petition has been filed.

The sole question for determination in this case is whether the order of the Executive Magistrate dated May 19, 1983 (Annexure P.2) is revisable or not. This question has been authoritatively settled by a Division Bench of the Court in Kartar Singh and others v. Smt. Pritam Kaur and another, (1984 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 617) : I.L.R. 1984 (2) Punjab and Haryana 139. It has been held in this judgment that an order of attachment of immovable property is interlocutory in nature within the meaning of section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently no revision against the same is maintainable.

It is, therefore, amply clear that the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, could not entertain the revision petition filed by Gopi Ram against the order of the Executive Magistrate attaching the property. The impugned order of staying the operation of the order of the Executive Magistrate in revision is, therefore manifestly without jurisdiction.

The learned respondent's counsel relied upon Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 2185. This Judgment is of no help to the respondent and it was taken into consideration by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case of Kartar Singh (supra).

The result is that this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, is set aside.