--/ SingSe Bench IILTHE^HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (C.G.l Cr.M.P. No. kS^\ /2011 APPLICANTS 'li.-t- • ^.^..•"••s^cs ^ 6^ S£^:::f- Orteil--—1' (APPLICANTS IN THE COURT BELOW) NON-APPLICANTS (NON-APPLICANTS IN THE COURT BELOW) 1. Niradhar S/o Kanhai Patel, aged about 49 years 2. Chhattar S/o Kanhai Patel aged about 46 years 3. Gangaram S/o Kanhai Patel aged about 42 years All Applicant no. 1 to 3 R/o village Pandripani (Eg.sl tehsil & district^^(b.G.) VERSUS 'w TAXS.^I..' 1. fcateshfcfPrasad Thawait S/o(late) Chakradhar Thawait, aged about 64 years, R/o Pandripani (east) Tehsil and district Raigarh (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Though Station House Officer, Police station Chakradharnagar, district Raigarh (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 ~5v( "ii^id-y, ®Ti1<ti<ie,fsidiy^ <3^~<iA^>- v^o """"T" 3)1^ W h-l ?TSH STT^T sn*i Y ^. 3iI^T1T5W('yf^'«,tT; wiiwafta an^ff SB : Hon'ble Shri Nlanlndra Mohs Court vide order dated 27/04/201 1 <?)'l^t^h *n*R?f ^f Fst<;l <r;»i^i< ^aifwTsn^i n Shrivastava. J. 220-2011 Shri Mahendra Dubey, coun^et for frie petitionere. Heard on admission. This petition has been fileitl by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 23/06/2011 by which the interim or<?er passed eariier in favour of ttie petitioners on 27/04C011 has been vacated. Learned counsel for the p^titionere submits that the iearned Revisional had passed an order protecting the possession of the petitioners by specifically redording that the petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute. Howeve(, iater on, on the application macte by the respondent, the order of stay has b^en vacated. Leamed counsei for the petifloners submits that the hnpugned order is non- speaking, amounts to reviewing W, awaiting receipt ofthe records and The order sheets, which 27/05/2011, the petitioners remair The Court recorded that the c; le eartier order and has been passed without s therefore, not sustainabie in law. lave been placed on re«?rd show that on led absent and no representation was made. >e was tisted for reply and arguments er> respondenfs application dated 29/P4/2011 and that no reply has been fiied. The case was again listed for considel representation was made. There^ e appiication filed on 29/04/2011 order passed by the Court, the orc] •aUon on 23/06/2011, on wtiich date a!so, no fter, the iearned Rsvisional Court considering by the respondent, that even before intetim er of the Sub-Uvisional Magisfrate passed on 18/04/2011 has been executed <^n 20/4V2011 and the fxssession has been deiivered to the respondent, vacatep the interim order passed eariia'. OT,n5T; .'rTa --!,Si'140—2/2011—1,50,000. sfi^rw ^i* ^IT 3?n^?r sb*ii^> Dee^ ~3^ -^ww^, ®Ti1-yii6,fsiywy ^)<'IAAj?- \AJD ' (^<?' 200 3n^l-7?^(1j°if3^i) Wirer^toai^i 5- L has aiready been deiivered to himj has already been delivered, whichl CM<li(ri^Tl ln^lflf ^ f^^ ^^K '^sifiiHSD^r The submissfon of teamed 4>unsei tor Vhe peUtioner th^: proper opportunity was not given, is not correct. On [the dates, the case was listed for hearing, the petitioners did not appear nor any (epresentation was made. Tti®submissioB that the order has been reviewed is a(so rut correct as the interim order has been vacated upon subsequent dlsciosu^e of the fact by respondent friat the possession The order speaks out ttiat as the possession has not been disputed by th®petitioners, the interim order passed eariier is vacafed. Having failedto appear befol-e the Court and contest the application filed by ! • . .- . the respondent, the petitioners canhot be heard on ttie submissien, which ougW to have been made before the Court no ground is made out for interferihg with the oraer dated 23/06fi011. However, considering that the matfer arises 4ut of the order passed by ttie Magtetate under Section 145 of the CrPC and the|t the case before the Court below is ripe for hearing and listed for hearing on vjarious dates and statement of iearned counsei for the petitioners that the case h|as now been listed on 26109/20^1, the Court below shali make ai! endeavor to tiecide the matter expedttiously, without further deiay. off. betow. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, With ttie aforesaid observations/directions, ihe petition is finafly disposed Sdi- ManindraMohan Sbrivastava ^n7"^(^ ^ff^in^^ u^v t'ri'a -• s/i 40— 2/2011—1,50,000.