R m, J1 f v (SB: Hon‘bk Mr. T.P.sma Bisauha Vs; Sukand o‘rhers hnm and ORDER BE PO§TED EOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 1‘ I‘ll/2010 ,dl Sdl- / P. Sharma Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PU Cr MP 0.462 of 2008 ; J § T. \ \6\“0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No.4$2 of 20D8 ‘ Pe‘tmonerl Applicant Bismha, 5/0 Lnngu 5ahu, aged abou'r 46 years, Agricuifurist R/o Vilfage Kurd,‘ Tehsii Nawagarh, P.S. , Nandghai', Disftbur (Chha'r‘risgar'h) Versus 1. Sukhmndnn, 5/0 Bisuuha Sahu, aged; 44yeurs 5hyamlal $/o Blsauha Sahu aged about 51 year-s 3 Amy-if, 5/0 Bisauhn Sahu, aged a§au+ 51 year-s, 4. Hlmlnl 5/0 Bvsnuha Sahu aged abou‘r 42 years (All Agricul‘rur-Is‘rs R/o Vlllage Kum P5 Nandghal' Tehsll Nawagarh ; ) Disfl'burg (Chhaf‘lisgarh) 5. Sm‘l’e of Chha'rlisgarh, ‘l‘hraugh Vlthe District Muglsl'm‘re, Disl‘rDur-QQ ~ (Peti‘l'ion under- secfian 482 of 'l'he Cr.P.C.) ‘ ‘ (53: Hon'ble Mn‘LP. shama. J‘) Presen‘r Mr SanJay S Agmwal counsel for +he pe'h‘honer Mr- Malny Kumar Bhadum counsel for respondenl's No 1 fo 4 Mr Qamrul Azlz Panel lawyer for respondent No 5 ORDER (Delivered on £1 January, 2010) h . 1 Challenge In fhls pe‘hflon under Sechon 482 of fhe Code of Cmmlnnl u: Procedure 1973 (m short ‘the Cede’) Is fa 'l'he order dated 1172008“ v passed by the Addmono! Sessions Judge, Beme'rara, 1n Criminal Revlsnon- No.161lOo, affirming the order dafed 30.§.2DO6 passed by ‘l'he Sub Divisional Magis’rra‘re, Beme'rarai in Criminal Case No.252120Q0‘ whereb g V y -2.- Ieamed Sub Divisional Magistmfe has dismissed The applicgfion filed by the petifioner under Section 145 of The Code. The order is challenged on We ground flan-r learned Sub Divisicml Magistrate and the revisional Cour‘r have no? considered The evidence sufficien‘r for drawing inference ‘rha‘i' The pe‘ri‘rioner- was in possession on 1’he dafe 9f passing of preliminary order. I have perused the impugned order and records of 'i’he Courfs below. The Sub Divisional Magisfra‘ie, Beme‘rare has dismissed The opplicafion on the ground ‘rhaf fhe responden'fs were in possession over the disgujjed property. The revisional Cour? has also affirmed the order vn The basis) of ihe evndenc» of the pefmoner The petrhoner himself has admif‘red In lasf paragraph of his evidence That responder-1' Na4 Heeralal has V forcefully taken possessor: and has also admitted the constrnetign pf! ‘ room since the time of Mathura Prasad Shukla and both rooms are divided by wall of bricks. This admission is sufficient for drawing} inference that the petitioner was not in possession over the’dispated ~ > property on the date of passing of preliminary order. The Courts below have not committed any illegality warranting exercise of extraordinary inherent iurisdiction in termsf Sectim} 2l=ofothee Code. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. T. P. Sharma j Judge . . vo