Chaudhary Paswan vs The State of Bihar

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-V, Khagaria, in Criminal Revision No. 145/ 2003, whereby the order dated 3.12.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria, in Cr. Misc. No. 2(M)/2/2000 has been set aside and the matter remitted back to him for passing a fresh order. Short facts giving rise to this application are that in the proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code'') the Executive Magistrate by order dated 7.5.1987 passed in Case No. 659(M) of 1977 found the possession of Second Party over the disputed land having been dispossessed within sixty days of drawing up of the proceeding on 19.10.1977. In view of the aforesaid order, Second Party filed application for restoration of possession before the learned Magistrate. When no order was being passed, he approached this Court by filing Cr. W.J.C. No. 4 of 1999. This Court by order dated 29.3.2000 directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria, to dispose of the application filed by the Second Party u/s 145(6) of the Code within a stipulated period. Petitioner is the First Party whereas Second Party was the predecessor-in-interest of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4. In the light of the said order, the prayer of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 was considered by the learned Magistrate and by order dated 3.12.2002 the application was rejected. Aggrieved by the same they preferred Criminal Revision No. 145 of 2003 and learned Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-V, Khagaria, by the impugned order set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, remitted the matter back to him for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

Mr. B.P. Singh appears on behalf of the petitioner. Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 are represented by Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh.

It is common ground that by order dated 7.5.1987 the learned Magistrate had found the possession of Second Party i.e. predecessor-in-interest of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 and they were dispossessed within sixty days of the drawing up of the proceeding u/s 145 of the Code.

The revisional court found that so long the said order is not set aside, Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 shall be entitled for restoration of possession.

I do not find any error in the same so as to call for any interference in this revision. This application is dismissed.