IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.53 of 2011. Date of decision: 20.07.2011 Yog Raj & Others … …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents 2 to 5: Mr.Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Manali, in proceedings under Sections 107/145 Cr.P.C. 2. The Magistrate, taking cognizance of an application preferred under Sections 107/145 Cr.P.C., directed that the shop, which is the subject matter of the petition, was in the possession of respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 7, described as party No.1 before the Magistrate. The order has been challenged on a number of grounds including the fact that the proceedings have 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 not been conducted in accordance with law and that the case has been dealt with in a cursory manner. 3. I need not go into the facts any further since I find that the possession already stands delivered to the parties by the Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate has not acted in accordance with the established principles and has ignored vital evidence on the record. 4. It is trite for me to observe that the order does not decide the title to the premises. It is only a possession which was protected. If the petitioners have a superior right of occupation in the disputed premises, it is always open to them to establish such right in a Civil Court and the order passed under Sections 107/145 would not constitute res judicata. Another submission has been made by the petitioner and that is that the premises belong to the Arch Survey of India. 5. In this situation, it is, but, obvious that any suit or any other matter instituted by the petitioners, they would be necessary parties, if what is submitted by the petitioners is the correct position. I do not wish to express any opinion on the legality of either party to be in possession, save and except, that the title, including any other damage and ownership of goods etc. and the shop, would be 3 determined in such a Civil Suit. The petition is disposed of. July 20, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.