IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) R.S.A. No.1896 of 2005 Darshan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Gurdial Kaur and another. .......Respondents through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. (2) R.S.A. No.1897 of 2005 Darshan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Surjit Singh. .......Respondent through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. (3) R.S.A. No.1898 of 2005 Darshan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Surjit Singh and another. .......Respondents through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -2- .... (4 ) R.S.A. No.1899 of 2005 Darshan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Hardial Kaur and another. .......Respondents through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. (5) R.S.A. No.1900 of 2005 Darshan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Surjit Singh and another. .......Respondents through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. (6) R.S.A. No.1901 of 2005 Darshan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Ajmer Singh. .......Respondent through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -3- .... (7) R.S.A. No.1902 of 2005 Darshan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Gurdial Kaur and another. .......Respondents through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. (8) R.S.A. No. 1905 of 2005 Darshan Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Prem Singh and others. .......Respondents through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. (9) C.O.C.P. No.1703 of 1998 Charan Singh and another. ....... Petitioners through Shri M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P.Vashisth, Advocate. Versus Shri Gurlavleen Singh Sidhu and others. R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -4- .... ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Jain and Shri Vishal Goel, Advocates. Respondent no.2 through Nemo. Respondent no.3 through Shri R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Saggi,Advocate. Date of Decision: 3.03.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the above mentioned eight Regular Second Appeals and the Contempt Petition as the questions of facts and law involved therein are inter-connected. The facts:- Eight separate civil suits were filed by the plaintiffs (respondents in the appeals) for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant (present appellant) from interfering in their ownership and possession over the suit land mentioned therein. It was pleaded that they were joint owners in possession of the suit land along with other co-sharers and that the defendant had no concern with the same, but he was forcibly R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -5- .... trying to dispossess them. The plaintiffs had also moved applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. Ad interim injunction was granted in their favour. In his written statements filed in the suits, the defendant had taken a number of preliminary objections including that the suits were not maintainable on account of non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. It was averred that Charan Singh, one of the co-sharers of the suit land, had leased out land falling to his share, measuring 36 killas 2 kanals including the suit land to the defendant vide agreement of lease dated 1.6.1994 for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- for the year 1994-95 and had received Rs.70,000/- as part payment of the lease money and the actual possession of the said land was delivered to him. The details of the land mentioned in the lease agreement dated 1.6.1994 was stated to be as under:- 1. Land measuring 14 killas 6 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Lakha, Tehsil Jagraon and on the passage of Manukianwala and known as Palekiawala Khet. 2. Land measuring 6 killas 7 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Manuke,Tehsil Jagraon and on the boundary of village Manuke and Lakha. 3. Land measuring 14 killas 4 kanals situated in the area of village Lakha, Tehsil Jagraon and on the passage leading to village Lambe Jat Pure. The defendant had also alleged that since Charan Singh was R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -6- .... living abroad, his brothers etc. were bent upon to grab his land and that after taking the land on lease, he had also sown the crops therein. Replies to the applications for grant of temporary injunction were also filed by the defendant praying therein that he would suffer irreparable loss if ad interim injunction was not vacated. In their replications, the plaintiffs reiterated their averments as made in the plaints. By separate orders passed on 19.12.1994, the ad interim injunction was made absolute till the decision of the suits. Thereafter, almost similar issues were framed in the suits. It is pertinent to mention here that Darshan Singh challenged order dated 19.12.1994 in separate appeals, which were accepted by separate orders dated 12.6.1995 and 2.11.1999 by the Courts of Additional District Judges, Ludhiana and the applications of the plaintiffs were dismissed. Civil Revision Nos. 2844 and 2845 of 1995 were filed by the plaintiffs against orders dated 12.6.1995 passed in two separate appeals by the Additional District Judge,Ludhiana and the same were dismissed by this Court on 7.8.1995. In the meantime, on 10.10.1994, Station House Officer, Jagraon submitted a Calendra under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon making Charan Singh son of Nikka Singh, Harbans Kaur wife of Charan Singh, Darshan Singh (appellant herein), Karnail Singh son of Gurdev Singh as First Party and Surjit Singh, R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -7- .... Piara Singh,Jora Singh, Ajmar Singh sons of Nikka Singh, Surjit Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh, Bachan Kaur wife of Piara Singh, Gurdial Kaur wife of Surjit Singh, Hardial Kaur wife of Jora Singh as Second Party. It was stated therein that all these persons except Darshan Singh (defendant) and Karnail Singh son of Gurdev Singh, were having about 108 killas 5 kanals and 10 marlas of land in their joint possession and the same has been partitioned amongst themselves mutually; that Charan Singh and Harbans Kaur have leased out the land of their share to Darshan Singh and Karnail Singh in which they have sown paddy crop; that both the parties lay their respective claims over the land as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91; that the Second Party was not allowing Darshan Singh and Karnail Singh to enter the fields and harvest their paddy crop and that there was a great tension between both the parties. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon took cognizance of the report of the Station House Officer as well as his statement made on 14.10.1994 and passed order dated 20.10.1994 vide which he concluded that there was a dispute between the parties in respect of land comprised in Rectangle No.47, Killa Nos. 7, 8, 13/1, 13/2, 13/3, 14, 17/1/1, 17/1, 17/2/2, 18/1, 18/2/1; Rectangle No. 71, Killa Nos. 24, 25; Rectangle No.72, Killa Nos. 21, 22, 23/2, Rectangle No.73, Killa Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9/1, 9/2, 10, 11, 12/1/1, 12/1/2, 12/2, 13/2 and Rectangle No. 74, Killa Nos. 4, 5, 6/1, 6/2/1 situated at village Lakha, Tehsil Jagraon. Therefore, he attached the aforesaid land under Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure and appointed Tehsildar, Jagraon as Receiver under Section 146 of the Code of R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -8- .... Criminal Procedure and directed to get the crop reaped standing thereon, sell the same and deposit the sale proceeds into the government treasury. He also directed that after the case was decided, the party in whose favour the decision goes, would be entitled to withdraw the sale proceeds. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued notice to both the parties and after hearing them through their counsel, ordered attachment of land on 21.11.1994 measuring 29 killas 2 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 37//25/2,46//5/2, 47//1, 2/1, 5/1,6/1,7, 8, 6/2,6/3, 5/2, 13/1, 13/2, 13/3, 14/1, 14/2,14/3, 16/2, 17/2/1, 17/1, 48//1/2, 1/1, 3/1, 9/2, 10, 47//25/1, 18/1, 18/2/1, 74//24, 25, 72//21, 22, 23/2, 73//1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/1/1, 12/1/2, 12/2/1, 74//4, 5, 6/1 situated in village Lakha and land measuring 55 kanals 17 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 226//15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25/1, 227//11/1, 20/2 situated in village Manuke on which the first party laid claim and the proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. were ordered to continue. Since the first party i.e. Darshan Singh, claimed that he was tenant over the said land, he was directed to produce evidence on 24.11.1994. Charan Singh and Darshan Singh challenged order dated 21.11.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by filing a revision petition which was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 11.5.1996 and the said order was set aside. Jora Singh and Hardial Kaur of the second party assailed the aforementioned order of the Additional Sessions Judge by filing revision petitions before this Court (being Crl. Revision Nos.453 and 454 of 1996). R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -9- .... This Court passed a detailed order dated 17.9.1998 partly accepting the revision petition. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of that order, which are relevant to this order, are reproduced below:- “21. So far as the lands for which no suits are pending as mentioned in the judgment dated 2.9.1998, I find that the order of dropping the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code is erroneous because it is based on the assumption that the civil proceedings are pending qua the lands. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge qua the lands for which no civil suit is filed viz., Khasra Nos. 37//25/3, 47//25/1, 73/9, 12/1/2, 12/2/1 and 74//4 deserves to be set aside. It has been mentioned in the statement dated 2.9.1998 that Khasra No. 37//25/2 appears to be a typographical mistake and it should be 25/3. These revision petitions, therefore, deserve to be allowed qua those lands only. 22. As a result, these revision petitions are partly allowed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dropping the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code and handing over the land to the present respondent no.3 qua Khasra Nos. 37//25/3, 47//25/1, 73/9, 12/1/2, 12/2/1 and 74//4 is set aside. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to proceed further qua these lands and pass necessary order in accordance with law. Rest of the prayer is rejected.” On 16.10.1998, Darshan Singh moved an application before the R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -10- .... Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon for implementing orders dated 11.5.1996 and 17.9.1998 passed respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge and this Court. The Tehsildar, Jagraon wrote letter dated 20.11.1998 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon requesting the latter to clarify as to who is to be given possession of which khasra number as per his verification. On 16.11.1998 (sic.16.12.1998), the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon asked the Tehsildar, Jagraon to ensure meticulous compliance of order dated 17.9.1998 of this Court. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon again wrote to the Tehsildar,Jagraon on 4.2.1999 to comply with the directions contained in his letter dated 16.11.1998 and send compliance report. Jora Singh and another filed revision petitions against the aforementioned two letters dated 16.11.1998 and 4.2.1999 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who dismissed the same vide his orders dated 31.3.1999. These orders and the letters were challenged by Jora Singh and another in two Crl.Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 10756-M and 11451-M of 1999 which were allowed in part by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 16.2.2001 and it was held that Darshan Singh was entitled to delivery of possession of only such land of those lands in which he claimed possession as detailed in the written statement filed by him before the learned Magistrate and which are also covered by Civil Suit Nos. 454, 458, 460 and 462 of 1994 and with regard to the rest of the lands, in which R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -11- .... he claimed possession and which were covered by other civil suits, namely, 455, 459, 461 and 464 of 1994, he was not entitled to get possession in view of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court in those civil suits and accordingly, the impugned orders were modified to that extent. Simultaneously, the Sub Judge concerned was directed to dispose of the civil suits within three months. In the meantime, Jora Singh and another had also challenged order dated 17.9.1998 passed by this Court by filing Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal which were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 21.1.1999, which is extracted below:- “This is a case where the High Court has finally confirmed dropping of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of lands which have become subject matter of dispute between the parties. There can be no possible grievance on that course adopted. But learned counsel contends that the directions of the Sessions Court in revision to restore possession of the land to Darshan Singh, who is respondent No.3, may create difficulties for the petitioner to establish his case in the Civil Court. We find little scope for any such apprehension because Civil Court is not to take into account that fact in deciding the rights of the parties and regarding possession as on the date of the suit. We are told that the Civil Court has already granted injunction in certain cases. It is for the parties to agitate their grievance in Civil Court. R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -12- .... With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.” Since Charan Singh and Darshan Singh felt that the interim order dated 18.7.1996 and judgment dated 15.9.1998 had not been complied with, they filed C.O.C.P.No.1703 of 1998 for initiating contempt proceedings against the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon and the Tehsildar, Jagraon. Jora Singh, one of the members of the second party was also impleaded as respondent no.3. After the files were received back in the year 2000, the proceedings were resumed in the civil suits and some evidence was recorded. On 15.3.2001, none appeared in the cases on behalf of Darshan Singh and, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiffs closed their evidence and thereafter, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') passed separate ex parte judgments dated 27.4.2001 decreed the suits with costs and restrained Darshan Singh from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands involved therein. Darshan Singh filed appeals against the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court, which were dismissed with costs by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') as being without merit. Hence, Darshan Singh has filed these eight Regular Second Appeals. Learned counsel for the Darshan Singh contended that the suits R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -13- .... which were filed prior to the raising of the dispute under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertained to the entire land which was situated in two villages including the land belonging to Charan Singh. He submitted that the land which fell to the share of Charan Singh by way of family settlement was the one which was leased out to Darshan Singh and it was this land which was saved by the orders dated 17.9.1998 of this Court while dealing with the challenge to the orders dated 2.9.1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Revision Petition Nos. 453 and 454 of 1996 and the relevant portions of which have been reproduced hereinabove. He further submitted that since Darshan Singh was only concerned with this land which Charan Singh had leased out to him, which was saved, hence, the findings and consequent decrees of the trial Court would not make any difference to him and would not bind his rights as he had no claim or concern with any other land belonging to the plaintiffs except the one which belonged to Charan Singh and was leased out to him. It was further submitted that Charan Singh had granted lease qua 29 Acres 2 kanals of land in village Lakha and 55 kanals 17 marlas in village Manuke, which fell to his share, but the plaintiffs had filed suits against Darshan Singh pleading that they were co-sharers and that he was trying to interfere with their possession on the entire land including the aforementioned land. Learned counsel for Darshan Singh urged that initially ad interim injunction was granted, but in appeal, the same was vacated and even the revision petitions filed by the plaintiffs were dismissed. In so far as the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -14- .... Criminal Procedure are concerned, learned counsel for Darshan Singh submitted that the police, apprehending breach of peace at the spot, had filed Calendra with regard to the entire land of the plaintiffs and Charan Singh. Darshan Singh had filed his written statement and pleaded that he had no dispute with any other land but was concerned with the land which was leased out to him by Charan Singh. The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order and appointed a Receiver while attaching the entire land and directed to get harvested the rabi crop. The revision petition against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was allowed and the amount of Rs.70,000/- which was obtained by selling the harvested crop, was directed to be paid to Darshan Singh and the possession of the leased land was directed to be handed over to him. It was next contended that the civil suits were filed prior to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the behest of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the orders which were passed subsequent to the filing of the suits could not have been ignored nor could they be ignored at this stage. Learned counsel for Darshan Singh submitted that the provisions of Section 145(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are amply clear and the possession of Darshan Singh even if he has been dispossessed, would relate back to two months prior to the filing of the suits and since he was in possession of the leased land even as per the Calendra initiated at the behest of the plaintiffs, affirmed by the Revisional Court, as also by this Court and the Apex Court, there was no escape from the conclusion that Darshan Singh was clearly in possession of the land belonging to Charan Singh in the capacity of a lessee R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -15- .... and, therefore, he was entitled to retrieve the possession. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents contended that the orders of this Court and the Apex Court were amply clear wherein it was observed that the proceedings would be subject to the final decision of the Civil Court. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the observations of this Court in its order dated 17.9.1998 and those of the Apex Court, which have been reproduced above. Learned counsel for the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who is respondent in the contempt petition, contended that the officer concerned has complied with the orders of the Courts and did not violate any directions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the whole record. At the out-set, it has to be noticed that Darshan Singh has been agitating only qua the land of Charan Singh which was leased out to him by the owner after he had attained his share by way of a family settlement. It is pertinent to notice that the plaintiffs did not implead Charan Singh as party to the suits. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by Charan Singh for impleading him as party in Civil Suit Nos. 455, 458, 460, 461, 464 of 1994, but the same remained unanswered by the trial Court. Therein, he had mentioned that prior to Kharif,1994, he was in possession of the suit land along with other land i.e., total measuring 36 killas 2 marlas on the basis of Hissedari out of total R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -16- .... entire joint land measuring 175 killas and that details of that has been mentioned by Darshan Singh in his written statement. In the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Charan Singh was a party and he remained committed to the stand of Darshan Singh. In the Calendra submitted by the police, a report was made, the relevant extract of which has been reproduced above, and on the statements of the respective parties, prima facie, it was found that Darshan Singh was in possession of the land belonging to Charan Singh at the time of initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Another note-worthy fact is that in the civil suits, initially temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs,which was ultimately vacated in appeal by the Additional District Judge. In revision petitions, those orders were affirmed by this Court. As noticed above, on the basis of the report of the Station House Officer, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order attaching the land. However, in the revision, the Additional Sessions Judge modified that order. The revisional order was also approved by this Court while deciding Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions to the limited extent regarding dropping of the proceedings vis-a-vis the land regarding which no suit was filed,but protected the impugned order and upheld the proceedings qua the land which was subject-matter of the civil suits. The Apex Court also upheld the order of this Court by its order dated 21.1.1999, which has been reproduced above. R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -17- .... An apprehension was expressed before the Apex Court that handing over of the possession of land to Darshan Singh as directed by the Sessions Court in the revision petitions would create difficulty and that contention was also repelled to say that Civil Court shall decide the question of possession independently. All the proceedings pursuant to Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., i.e., revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, then before the High Court and thereafter before the Apex Court, were initiated at the best of the respondents. The aforementioned factors cumulatively give trace of a hint that Darshan Singh was probably in possession of the land which he claimed to have obtained by way of lease from Charan Singh. These factors were, however, not before the trial Court for the reason that Darshan Singh defaulted in appearance before it. It has been noticed in the impugned judgments that despite the fact that the respondents had led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove that they were in possession of the land in dispute as co-sharers, Darshan Singh did not care to prosecute his case. He sought a number of adjournments and did not even cross-examine the witnesses on the pretext that his counsel was not present and some time requests had been made for adjournments on flimsy grounds and ultimately, he did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. No attempt was made by him to get the ex parte order set aside by moving an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. at any stage of the proceedings. He invited the order by which he was proceeded against ex R.S.A.No.1896 of 2005 -18- .... parte and did not assail it in any manner. In this view of the matter, the trial Court was left with no other option but to proceed on the basis of the evidence before it and consequently, decreed the suits of the respondents. Even before this Court, no explanation worth