IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.680 of 2002 [Against the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sasaram in Case No. 849 of 2001] ======================================================= Manoj Kumar Singh @ Manoj Kumar Rai son of Shri Ram Singh resident of village- Khairi, Post- Laheri, P.S.- Kochas, District- Rohtas. (First Party in the Court below) …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Gopal Singh @ Gopal Rai son of Bishram Singh, resident of village- Khairi, Post- Laheri, P.S.- Rohtas, District- Rohtas. (Second Party in the court below) .... .... Opp. Parties ======================================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner :Mr. Indu Shekhar Pd Sinha, Sr.Adv. :Mr. Shivendra Narayan Sinha, Adv. :Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The 1st party-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sasaram in Case No. 849 of 2001 by which the land in question has been attached and receiver has been appointed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.680 of 2002 dt.30-11-2011 2 entire land in the proceeding is coming in continuous peaceful possession of the petitioner since long. The title and possession over the land under the proceeding have been declared in favour of the petitioner and the members of his family by the learned Additional District Judge, X, Sasaram vide order dated 20.12.2000 in Title Appeal No. 171 of 1998 against which opposite party no. 2 and others have preferred Second Appeal No. 46 of 2001 which is pending in this Court. Vide order dated 16.7.2001 passed by a Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 46 of 2001 parties have been directed to maintain the status quo with respect to the suit property. In that view of the matter the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass any order with regard to the land in question. 3. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even after service of notice. 4. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.680 of 2002 dt.30-11-2011 3 State and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. It is settled principle of law that the proceeding under Section 144, 145 and 146 cannot override over the decision made by the Civil Court, ultimately the decision made by the Civil Court will prevail upon both the parties. The land in question is the subject matter of Title Appeal No.171 of 1998 and Second Appeal No. 46 of 2001. An order of status quo has been passed by a Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 46 of 2001 filed by Sri Bishram Singh, the father of opposite party no. 2 and others. The order dated 16.7.2001 passed in Second Appeal No. 46 of 2001 is binding on both the parties. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 15.7.2002 passed by the learned SDM is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. 7. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Patna High Court Dated 30th of November 2011 N.A.F.R/Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)