IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.50 of 2007 KISHMAT DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8 11.02.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prays for restoring her possession in the suit premises. 3. The petitioner submits that she is owner of the premises which has lent on rent. A probate was filed by the mother of respondent no.9 and same was allowed in her favour. A First appeal bearing F.A. No. 377 of 1987 was filed by the petitioner in which order of status quo was passed vide order dated 7.2.1989. 4. The petitioner submits that subsequently a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated which was decided in her favour vide order dated 3.4.1999, as contained in annexure 2. In the aforesaid proceeding, the Executive magistrate prima facie found the claim of possession and title of the petitioner to be correct. After 13 days another proceeding was initiated vide case no. 458 of 1999, at the instance of respondent no.4. The same was decided in favour of respondent no.4 on 15.6.1999. Thereafter, respondent no.4 filed a petition before respondent no.2 on 28.7.1999 for directing respondent no.3, the Sub Inspector of Police to unlock the premises in question as the latter had locked the premises pursuant to a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. Leaned counsel submits that taking undue advantage of the second order dated 15.6.1999, passed in 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding, the authorities forcibly got the petitioner evicted and put respondent no.4 in premises. The petitioner filed Cr Revision No. 187 of 1999 before the - 2 - Sessions judge, Saran at Chapra which was allowed in her favour. The aforesaid order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Saran has been annexured as annexure 5. The revisional court remitted back the matter to the Executive magistrate. The petitioner filed several representations before the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra in view order passed by Revisional authority. Thereafter he moved this court in writ jurisdiction being CWJC No. 12409 of 2004. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 7.2.2003, whereunder it was observed as follows:- At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. proceedings and the miscellaneous execution matter have been quashed by the revisional court. If that is so then the petitioner must go back to the first authority and ask him that as the order passed by the authority in execution of which the petitioner was dispossessed has been set aside therefore, the parties be relegated back to other original possession. 5. It appears that status quo order was passed by this Court in the aforesaid First appeal in the year 1989, on an application of the petitioner for restraining respondents from selling the premises in question. It further appears that soon after decision in 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding in favour of the petitioner, another 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was started after 13 days. Pursuant to the order in aforesaid second 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding, respondent no.4 was put back in possession. The Order in 2nd 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding by which respondent no.4 was directed to be put in possession has been set aside by the revisional court. 6. As such, the direction passed by this Court in CWJC No. 12409 of 2002 will be applicable. It appears that opp party was put in possession despite status quo order in F.A. No. 377 of 1987 passed on 7.2.1989. This - 3 - Court directs the Executive magistrate to lock the premises in question restraining both sides from entering into it. The question as to who would be put in possession would be decided in appropriate application which is to be filed in the First Appeal pending in this Court. Let this order be faxed to the court concerned at the cost of the petitioner. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J)