IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51589 of 2006 6 29.1.2010 1. Ram Uchit Rai 2. Ravindra Rai 3. Satyendra Rai 4. Bhupendra Rai 5. Upendra Rai @ Raju Rai 6. Jitendra Rai @ Jitendra Kumar 7. Smt. Sita Devi wife of Late Arbind Rai All sons of Late Ramashray Rai All resident of villate Khaspur, P.S. Maner District Patna ..... Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. Dhurpatia Devi wife of Late Bhola Rai, resident of village Saristabad, P.S. Gardanibagh district Patna 3. Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Sri Sirda Prasad Rai, resident of village Sahalichak, P.S. Maner, district Patna .... Opp. Parties -------- For the Petitioner : Mr Dronacharya, Advocate For the State : Mr Nityanand Tiwary, APP For OP No.2& 3 : Mr L.K.Yadav, Advocate -------- Heard the parties. The order under challenge is under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appointing Anchal Adhikari, Maner as receiver of a land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that petitioners succeeded due to dismissal of Title Suit No.83 of 1964/ 28 of 1967 and a First Appeal bearing No.144 of 1974 arising 2 out of that judgment and decree is pending before this Hon’ble Court. In cases of urgency an Executive Magistrate may under permissible circumstances take recourse to Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but such orders are always amenable to challenge before the civil court specially if the land in question is already subject- matter of a title suit. An appeal is always a continuation of original suit and the petitioner on the basis of judgment in the suit is always at liberty to seek appropriate order from the civil court or from this Court in the pending appeal. If the first appeal, for any reason, has stood dismissed then implication would be that the judgment in favour of the petitioners as claimed by them has become final. In that situation also they can get the benefit of that judgment and decree of the civil court in accordance with law. In the aforesaid circumstances, interest of justice does not require this Court to go into complicated issues of facts in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application is, therefore, dismissed with liberty that the petitioners may seek 3 remedy as per Code of Civil Procedure as they also claim to have a judgment and decree in their favour. It is made clear that this Court has not applied its mind in the present proceeding to the merits of cases of either of the parties. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) sk