Rajdeep Pvt.Ltd.and ors. vs Sohan Lal Punani and ors.

J.B. Garg, J.

M/s Rajdeep Pvt. Ltd Seema Theatre, Panipat is a private limited company and registered as such since 2731981. In the beginning it appears that the capital was rupees ten lacs but subsequently there was an increase and it reached twentyfive lacs in April, 1986 and it has also been alleged that on 1341986 respondent No. 1 Shri Sohan Lal Punani was removed from the post of Managing Director under section 284(1) of the Companies Act. The present dispute relates to the possession of Seema Theatre, Panipat.

It was on 2721997 that proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'') were initiated against Ved Parkash Paliwal and six others on the plea that there was tension and apprehension of breach of peace because both the parties were claiming possession of the theatre. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panipat after recording the statement of Shri Sube Singh, Sub Inspector of Police Station City Panipat ordered attachment of the aforesaid Cinema under Section 146 of the Code and appointed Tehsildar Panipat as a Superdar.

Another offshoot of the dispute is that there was a civil suit as well which was for declaration in respect of the Cinema and it was instituted by Sohan Lal Punani against Ved Parkash Paliwal and several others. In this civil suit there was also an application of temporary injunction and the parties came to this Court and on 16.121985 it was held by D. V Sehgal, J, that Sohan Lal Punani and his companions who were the petitioners in that litigation did not have a prima facie case to restrain the opposite party from interfering with the business of the company or the possession of the Cinema. The order of the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the application of temporary injunction was thus affirmed on 16121985. On 17.2.1987 the aforesaid civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Panipat (Annexure R.2). After the aforesaid withdrawal of the civil suit the proceedings pending under sections 145 and 146 of the Code were also dropped by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 2021987 and the original order of attachment dated 2661985 was also withdrawn and there was a direction that Superdar be also informed in this regard (Annexures P4/T and P5/T).

The matter of did not end there. The S.H.O. of Police Station, Panipat again moved an application under Section 145 of the Code on 2721987 against Ved Parkash Paliwal and six others and again there is an order of attachment of Seema Theatre, dated 2721987 and it is reproduced as under :

"Calendar presented today.

It is revealed by a perusal of the calendar that there is tension between the parties on account of possession of Seema Theatre, Panipat. I am, therefore, satisfied that preliminary order under section 145 Cr. P.C. be issued;

Shri Sube Singh S.I. PoliceStation City, Panipat, has appeared and made a statement that both the parties claim to be owner of this theatre. There is lot of ill will between the parties and at any time there may be a possibility of commission of a serious offence and he has prayed that the disputed cinema be attached under section 146 Cr. P.C.,

From the circumstances set out in the calendar and the statement of the S.I., I find it a case of emergency nature and hereby attach the cinema in dispute under section 146 Cr. P.C. Tehsildar Panipat is appointed its Superdar. JUDGMENTs of attachment be accordingly issued and the casebe put up on 1731987.

Sd/

Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Panipat."

2721987

On behalf of the petitioners it has been alleged that this subsequent order of attachment (Annexure P9/T) is an abuse of the process of the Court and it is a method to defeat the order (Annexure P1) by which the application for temporary injunction was dismissed up to the level of this Court on 16121985; that section 145 of the Code should not be used as a tool to promote the interest of a party which had no case before a civil Court; that the respondents No 1 and 2 had been intentionally trying to interfere the management either by filing civil suit or by resorting to the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code. It has been prayed that the impugned order of 2021987 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Panipat be quashed.

In reply filed by Sohan Lal Punani on 2141987 it has been averred that the earlier proceedings were dropped on the statements made by the parties and when the present petitioners wanted to resort to violence the fresh proceedings were initiated with a view to prevent breach of peace; that the civil suit was dropped at the request of both the parties and it was not a device to frustrate the interim order of the civil court. However, the respondents have also mentioned in the reply that the dispute regarding the enhancement of shares from rupees 15 lacs to rupees 25 lacs in disregard of the articles and memorandum of the Company C.P. No. 34 of 1987 is also pending in Delhi High Court inter se the parties (Annexure P18).

On behalf on the petitioners it has been argued that there was no justification for parallel proceedings in civil court as well as in the court of Executive Magistrate inter se the parties and in this regard reliance has been placed on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 : AIR 1985 SC 472, but in this case of Ballia the civil suit was decided and dismissed and thus it was found to have been adjudicated upon. In the case now in hand the civil suit in question was dismissed as withdrawn with the consent of the parties and after a particular finding. In order to support this contention the learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow v. Ved Parkash, A.I.R. 1976 Allahabad 264 and has stressed that as soon as a civil suit is dismissed even for default the temporary injuction the plaintiff possessed shall be of no avail unless the suit is revived. In Major Singh and another v. State of Punjab and ors., 1988(1) Recent C.R. 348, it was observed that even if an earlier suit had been dismissed as withdrawn proceedings under section 145 of the Code could be initiated.

Thus, in view of the reasons discussed above, it is apparent that there is a dispute regarding possession of this Cinema inter se the parties notwithstanding that a civil suit was withdrawn on the statements of the parties and the proceedings under Section 145 and 144 of the Code were also dropped at one stage. The necessity again arose within a few days, to attach the promises afresh and there appears to be no good ground of interference at this stage and the present petition under section 48 of the Code is hereby dismissed.