AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. B. Asthana, J.—This revision has been directed against the order dated 2111992 passed by S. D. M. Chhata, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 35 of 1992 under Section 145, Cr.P.C. issuing notice under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. It does not appear any order for attaching the subjectmatter of dispute was passed.
A preliminary point was raised that the order in question is an interlocutory order and in view of Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. no revision lies against an interlocutory order. In Indra Deo Pandey v. Bhagwati Din, 1981 ALJ 687 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that order for attaching property under Section 146(1), Cr. P. C. during pendency of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order. In Jai Prakash v. Radhey Shyam Singh, 1987 ALJ 987. It was held that preliminary order under Section 145(1), of the Code or an order of attachment under Section 146 (1) of the Code and directing the parties to appear on a particular day and lead evidence to prove their respective cases is an order made as a matter of procedure and allows the action to go on and nothing has been decided, hence it is certainly not a final order and the revision would not be maintainable in view of Section 397 (2). In Shamsher Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1985 CrLJ (NOC) 36 also it was held that an order of attachment passed under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies.
In the instant case even order of attachment has not been passed. Only notice has been issued. The order in question is purely an interlocutory order against which no revision lies.
Lengthy arguments were advanced on behalf of the revisionist to show that he is the owner and in possession of the subjectmatter of dispute. The question of ownership is not to be looked into in these proceedings. The question of possession, without reference to the right to hold possession, on the relevant date has to be looked into. This question has to be decided with reference to the evidence adduced by the parties in the case. No evidence hafts far been adduced. No question, therefore, of recording rending of fact in this revision arises.
The revision is misconceived and is dismissed. The stay order granted on 16111992 is vacated.
Revision dismissed.