Rajendra Kumar Sharma vs Raja Dhruv Dev Chand (since deceased), Aditya Dev Katoch, Rani Shailendra Kumari, Rani Mandawi Kumari of Baghpuri and Major Manik Dev Katoch and State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 28.04.1988, passed by First Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in Criminal Revision No. 94 of 1983, whereby said court has allowed the revision, and set aside the order dated 15.03.1983, passed by the Resident Magistrate, Haridwar, and remanded the matter back to him for fresh finding in the light of the observations made in the order.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist states that he has no instructions in the matter.

This revision was originally filed by the revisionist before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1988, where it was admitted on 07.07.1988. Subsequently, the revision is received by transfer to this Court u/s 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 1000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal.

Brief facts of the case are that proceedings u/s 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure were drawn by the Executive Magistrate (Resident Magistrate), Haridwar, on the application of respondent No. 1 Raja Dhruv Dev Chand (since deceased), in respect of the property known as ''Kangra Bhawan'', situated at Bhimgodda Road in Haridwar. The Executive Magistrate after hearing the parties found that the possession of the second party Rajendra Kumar (present revisionist) was found for more than two months on the date of initiation of the proceedings. Consequently, it was directed that the first party (present respondent No. 1) should not disturb the possession of the second party. Raja Dhruv Dev Chand (respondent No. 1) aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate filed Criminal Revision No. 94 of 1983 before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, on which the impugned order was passed. (Earlier Haridwar was part of District Saharanpur).

After going through the impugned order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, this Court does not find any illegality in the order remanding the matter to the Executive Magistrate, for fresh decision of the case.

Therefore, the revision is dismissed. Registry is directed to send back the record.