AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manisana, J.—This revision petition arises from an order dated 8.9.88 passed by the Sessions judge Karimganj in Criminal Motion No 9(2) of 1988 dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 8.4.88 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karimganj made in Case No. 355m of 1984 deciding the possession of the disputed land u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the Respondent.
Sri A.B. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner has title to the land in dispute and, therefore, be has the right to possess the subject of dispute.
Under Sub-section (4) or the Section 143, Code of Criminal Procedure possession is to be decided without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the party to a right to possess the subject of dispute. Therefore, the enquiry under Sub-section (4) is limited to the question as to who was in actual or physical possession on the date of the preliminary order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure irrespective of the rights of the parties. However, the title or right of a party cannot be completely ignored, it can be used for collateral purpose, i.e. title or right of a party may be relevant as an evidence for determination of the actual possession of the parties.
The judgments of the Courts below show that there is a clear finding of the Magistrate that the Respondent was in actual possession of the subject in dispute. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Stay order stands vacated. The aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court for his remedy, if so advised.