AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to challenge the order, dated, 08.02.2006, passed by the 1st Respondent restraining the Petitioner from entering the land under the ownership and possession of the Petitioner.
It is not disputed that in civil suit O.S. No. 280 of 2005, the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam, allowed the application moved by the Petitioner, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, and the predecessor in interest of Respondent No. 2 was restrained from interfering in possession of the Petitioner.
The civil suit to determine the rights of the parties is pending, and after temporary injunction was granted against the father of the Respondent No. 2, it seems, Respondent No. 2 approached the police authorities, alleging that there was likelihood of breach of peace.
On the complaint by the Respondent No. 2, proceedings u/s 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure stand initiated. On the report filed by the police officer, the 1st Respondent exercising the power of the Executive Magistrate, passed the order, restraining the Petitioner herein from entering the land or disturbing the possession.
The impugned order on the face of it, is not sustainable in law being without jurisdiction.
It is well settled law that the authorities exercising the jurisdiction under Sections 144 and 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure are bound by the order of the civil court.
Once, injunction order was passed, the authorities were bound to enforce that order of civil court.
The order passed u/s 144/145 of Code of Criminal Procedure was required to give way to the order of civil court.
Otherwise also, the impugned order on the face of it is without jurisdiction as the Executive Magistrate has No. power to pass the injunction order against a particular party. As while exercising of jurisdiction under 144/145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the receiver could have been appointed to take over possession of the property so as to hand over to the person from whom the possession is taken, after holding enquiry.
The Respondent counsel has opposed this writ petition, by contending that the Petitioner has No. legal right to claim any relief, as the impugned order was passed to avoid breach of peace.
As already observed above, in the present case, in view of the interim injunction order being in favour of the Petitioner, there was No. jurisdiction with the 1st Respondent to appoint either receiver or restrain the Petitioner from enjoying the property.
The party aggrieved by the order of injunction, can challenge it before the appellate court in accordance with law. The aggrieved party cannot resort to proceedings u/s 144/145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As the criminal court is bound by the order passed by civil court.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.