Ramesh Das Tyagi vs Babulal and Others

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The applicant Shri Remeshdas Tyagi, who was one of the member of party No. 2 before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has filed this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore in Criminal Revision No. 50/2008 whereby allowing the Revision filed by the respondent No. 1 & 2, the order dated 25.3.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Budhni District Sehore in Criminal Case No. 3/1996 holding the possession of the present applicants over the disputed land before two months from 19.4.1996 the date of initiation of Istgasa with a direction to the receiver to handover the possession of such land to the present applicant has been set aside and by holding the aforesaid property of some trust the possession of the applicant was held under the authority of such trust. In the course of the argument on perusing the impugned order passed by the revisional Court as well as the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, I have found that the present respondent No. 2 Ramdhani Das Tyagi has filed some Civil Suit No. 63-A/01 against Ramanand Asharm, Public Trust through it''s Chairman namely Chandramadas for declaration and perpetual injunction in the Court of District Judge, Bhopal, the same was dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2002. Against such dismissal applicant Rameshdas Tyagi has filed a First Appeal before this Court as submitted by the counsel of the parties present before the court. The same is still pending.

Subsequent to dismissal of aforesaid Civil Suit said Ramanand Asharm Public Trust through it''s President Chandramadas and other trustees has filed a Civil Suit against the present applicants for declaration and perpetual injunction in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sehore, the same is still pending and in pendency of such suit on filing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad-interim injunction in pendentelite of such suit, on consideration by allowing the same some interim injunction was issued in favour of the aforesaid trust. On which the present applicant had filed Misc. Appeal No. 4608/10, before this Court. The same is still pending in this court for adjudication.

In the aforesaid subsequent Civil Suit filed on behalf of the Trust the respondent No. 1 and 2 being trustees of such trust are also impleaded as plaintiffs/ respondents in suit and Misc. Appeal respectively. Accordingly, the civil litigation, the title suit, with respect of same disputed property is still pending between the parties present in this revision before the appropriate forum i.e. in the trial Court as well as before this Court.

In the aforesaid premises, the parties have already gone before the Civil Court to resolve their dispute and they are in a position to get the appropriate order from the civil court like interim injunction or some other order. Therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the present proceedings initiated u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. could not be permitted to be continued and same deserves to be dropped with a direction to the parties to approach the Civil Court with appropriate proceeding. In the aforesaid cited case it is held as under:

2..........When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under S. 145 of the Code, would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil Court, the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation.

In view of aforesaid without going to examine the merits or demerits of impugned criminal proceedings the entire impugned proceedings initiated u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dropped and parties are extended a liberty to approach the Civil Court in the pending litigation or by separate litigation permissible under the law for obtaining appropriate relief either for perpetual injunction or appointment of receiver or any other relief permissible under the law.

The revision is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, with a further direction that the parties shall now govern by the order of the Civil Court which would be passed either in their pending litigation or in any other proceeding permissible under the law. Revision is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, direction and observation.