^M^'" ^ ^^v PETITIONBR HIQH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR CR.M.P. N0. 210 OP 2009 Ajeet Maojhi, S/o Sunil Maajhi, aged about 24 years R/o Near Welcoine Kiraya Bhaadar Paadri, PoUce Station Paadri (Mova), Raipur Tahsil aiid District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT Prashaat Kuiuar Sahu, S/o Thaauram. Sahu, aged about not known, R/p Paiichvati Nagar, Mova, Police Statiou Paadri (Mova), Raipur, TahsU aad District Raipur (C.G.). 1^^ PETITIPN UNDER SBCTIQN 482 OP THE CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCBDURE. 1973^ (SB :Hon*ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedoa 30/4/2009) 1. Heard on I.A. N0. 2, appUcation for takiag additional facts aad docuinents on record, The appUcation (IA, No. 2) is allowed. The additional facts and docuinents are taken on record. 2. Heard on I,A. No. 01, for graiit ofin.terun protectioa. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits fhat vide order dated 29/2/2008 in case No. 995/07 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raipur has declared the possession of the respondent which has been affiroied iii crmim.al revision No. 47/08 vide order dated 12/8/08 passed by 3rd Additiional Sessions Judge, Raipur. 4« Leam-ed coiuisel for the petitioner furttier subinits fhat order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate was stayed by revisional court tUl disposal ofthe revision. S. Leamed counsel for the petitioner penised the dociiiaents i,e. fhe onler dated 3/3/2009 passed by 5th Civil Jude Class-2, Raipur ia civil suit N0, 90/05 by which the civil Court has grao.ted ixijunction in. favour of the petitioner ao.d subinits that order graatmg iajunction has been set aside by tiie appeUate Court, u^ "^- 8. Learaed counsel for fiie petitioner further subniits ttiat learaed Sub Divisioual Magistrate is issuiiig fhe warrant for possession agam.st the petitioner aad wifh a view to secure status-quo as exists today soine protection be given. It appears fhat after passiag of fhe final order by fhe Sub Divisional Magistrate which has been affirDied by revisional Court present petitioner had filed a civil suit aad also obtaiaed injunction relatiag to fhe possession from tlie civil court but same was set aside by fhe appeUate Court. The provisions ofSection 145 ofthe Code provides suinxueiy proceeding aiid pardes are required to adjudicate fheir claiin before fhe conipetent civil court and once fhe parties approaches fhe civU Court speciaUy relatmg to the claiiu of possession aad if issue relatiag the possession is considered snd decided fheu aay proceedmg under Section 145 of fhe Code the crmiiaal court becoiaes functus officio. Takiag ia to consideration fhe filiag of fhe civil suit and graiit of iojuactiou which was subsequently set aside, I do not fiad aay ground for mvokiag extraordmaiy iaherent jurisdictioa. Consequently, LA. N0. 01 is disiaissed and iaconsequent fhe petition is liable to be disniissed aad it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge