412 IN TliE HlGII COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH A CrleMlsce NoeMe 37133of2007 Dateofdecision2382010 UjagarSinghand another Petitioners Vs StateofPunjab andothers 4 e CORAM HONBLE MRSJUSTlCE DAYA CHAUDHARY P PR13SENT MrGSSandhawalia Advocate 0 for thepetitioners t Mrl3aljinder SinghSra AddAG Punjab for No to 3 MrMalkeet SinghAdvocate for No 4 and 5 I 4888 Z ORDER The presentpetitionhas been fl Icd under Section 482 CrlC for of impugned order dated28007 4nnexurc1251passedby 021 Addl Sessions JudgeKapurthala vide which an application flled by the petitioners for impleading theln party in the revlSlOll petition has been mwl Z dismissed and the view takenbySub Divisional has Qm beenupheld Notice ofmotion was issued on 162007 The facts of the case as menoned in the petitionare that petitionersfiled a suit for specific before the Civil Court pertaining to the land in disputeStatusquo with regardto ovcr the Iandin dispute was passedbythe civil Court in favour ofthe petitioncrs The petitioners moved an application oforbeingiinpleaded as pal1y bcforc the Additional SessionsJudge where the criminal revision arisine out of KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.11 12: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 413 0 363 CrleMisceNoeN 37133 of2007 121 44 the under Section1451146Cr were pcndingand the same Wasdismissed Learned counsel for the petilionershas chalIengedlhe order on the groundthat civil SUlt was pendingbetween the parties for specific of the agreement and ordcr of status quo was also passedThe Receiver was in of thc land in dispute C Thedispute was therebetweenthe and No 4 and 5 0 0 and it would be better if the petitioners are iinpleadcd as party in thc I pending before the revisional Court Lcamcd counscl for the I petitioner fiirther submits that the was handed over to petitioner No on 1992005 againstwhich No6 1Oled Z revlSIOO petitionbefore Additional DeputyCoinmlssionerand lherefore No is entitled for the of the land lll dispute I 011 NoA and 5 hadadmittedthattheyhad nothing to do with the land in disputeand theyhad been holdingthe land at the instanceof the V Z On 72003 a fresh power of attorneywas givento petitioner Il No2 The said Powerof attorney was cancelledbySDM 0113092005 and onlybecauseofthat an application for was inoved W Learned counsel for the petitioneralso subInits that the dated 15A 1993 Annexure I 19 and datcd 15 01 993 P29 were on behalf of the petitioners which were Iater on rectified on 92002 and 72003 6Annexures P3 and P69 and variouS powerof attorneyswere givento the petitioners and their relative Balwant Singhbut the learned Additional SessionsJudgedismisscd the without contesting the issue KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.11 12: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 414 l1 1 4 CrleMisceNoeM 37133 of2007 131 Learned counsel for the subinits that thc have no concern wriththe land iondispute and thereis no needto impleadthem as party in the reVlSlOn petition In thc Jamabandifor the year 199697 SuljitSinghand his brotherAjitSinghwere recordedto be lIl lawful ofthe suit land Even in for theyear 2001 1 2002 SurjitSinghwas recorded to be in ofthe land in dispute 0 alongwith his brother Sukhjit Singhand SarupSinghmoved an 0 t application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari in their namesand the applicationwas dismissed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade I Learned counsel for the furthersubmitsthat the Z cannot take the benet of the fact that the suit was decidedln their favourand question was not decidedin the It L 1S clear from the of RW to RW4 that even at the tinoeof I 08 initiatlOll of under Section 145 CrP SurjitSinghwas Ill physicalpossession of the land in dispute as Receivcr took the Z ofthe suit land fromSuljitSinghLearned counsel for the lastly arguedthatpossessionof the propeitywas takenbythe Receiver under tlle order of the Court as a trustee and onlySurjitSinghlS entitled to get of the land in dispute from the Receiver MrMalkeet Singh learnedcounsel for No 4 and 5 has placedreIiance on the judgmcnts of the Honble Suprelne Court in Ram Sumcr Puri Mahant vse 278 Nlahar Jahan and others VS State of Delhi and others R6Criminao 80 and this Court lll Zoravar Sineh Vs State of Punjaband othcrs 20086lJRCl KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.11 12: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 415 S CrlMisc NoM 37133 of2007 141 1 Criminall 1029 NirmaI Sinh Vs Hardeep Singh 200841RR CriminalJ230 and Sant Dareshan Sineh and anothcr Vs State of Puniab and others RCR6Crimina0338 to support his contention I have heard the argumentsof learned counsel for the parties and have also gone throughthe impugned order and other docunlents availableon the file 0 In this case a sult for specific was filed witll I D regardto Iand in disputeby petitionerUjagarSingh and status quo was I orderedbytl civil Court An under Seclion 145 CrC was Z filed by SarupSinghand SukhjitSlngh No 4 and 5 7 before the Court of SulOivisional Magistrate t which was allowed and a revision againstthe order passedin the I 021 under Section 145 CrPC was liled bySuljitSingh No6 An applicationfor as was also Oled by Z petitioner Singhwhch was dismissed by rcvisional Court Oll 11 the groundthat SukhjitSinghwaS lIl actual of the Iand at lhe time of initiation of under Section 145 CrC and directions were issued to hand oVer of the land in disputeto them The Additional SessionsJudgedismissedtheapplication on the groundthat Sub Divisional Magistrate had rightlyheld that the Tehsildar Kapurthala should have handed over possessionof the land in disputeto SukhjitSinghand SarupSinghas theywere in actual possessionof ihc Iand at thc ti me o f lllitiation under Section 145 CrPC and order ofSDM was upheldand revision was dismissed It is also the case ofthe petitioners that KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.11 12: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 416 1 CrleMisceNoeM 37133 of2007 151 t beingpower of attorneyof SukhjitSinghand SarupSingh the under Section 145 CrPC before the SDM as SukhjitSingh andSarupSinghexecutedan agreeinent ofsale Iandin dispute 111 favour of UjjagarSingh on 92002 throughtheir attorney and SukhjitSinghand SarupSinghcancelled thcir powcr of attorneyin favourof Singhon 2712002 The matter was 1 t resolvedbetween theparties and the power of attomeydated 271 2200 1 0 C wasagainrestoredin favour Singhon 72003 SukhjitSinghand SarupSinghflled suit for I specific byagreements ofsale dated1511993 and 15101993 on 178996 and status quo with regard to was Ordcredtill thc Z C4 disposal of the suit Since the matter was before the Ci vil Court and Sukhjit Singhand SarupSinghwere tn ofthe land in and moreover civil Court has also givenSndingvide order dated oS 1772006thatSukhjitSinghand SarupSinghwere entitledto getexecuted 1 saledeed SUlt landin their favour on the basisof agreemeilts of Z 0 saledated 15 1993 and 1 101993 aftermakingpaymentof the balance amount Thepetitioners were neitherpany o the undcrScclion 145 CrPC Leamed counselfor the petitioners has also not been ablc to showany provisionfor a third person as partyand that is also at the time of of the reVlSlOll petitionThe under Section145CrPC were initiated at the instanceof No 4 and 5 as theywere receiving threatsof from No 6 and7 and SDM Kapurthala hasrightlydecided in fai7ourof N 4 and 5 as theywere 111actual of the land in disputc a1 lhc KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.11 12: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 417 0 CrIeMisceNoN 37133 of2007 161 time of initiation of under Section 145 CrPC and receiver had taken from No 4 and 5 whereastheywere entitled to the om the recelve This view has beensupporled bythejudgment of Honble the ApexCourt in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Ve State of UP 198519RR Criininallwherein it has been held thal when civil litigationis pendingregarding of the property C parallelcriminal should not be permitted and publictlllle 0 1 should not be wasted in Iitigationln anothei judgment of I Honble theApexCourt in Mahar Jahan and others v State of Delhi and I others 200629RRCriminal9 80 wherein it has been held that when a Z matter 1S pendlngbeforethe civil Court under Scction 145 CrC should not be entertainedand if still pendingthen no contrary Lr order shouldbe passed as in the presentcase thc nlaltcr was pending I 021 before the Civil Court and status quo order was also there and even an order passedin the are liable to be set aside Moreover the 2 Z petitioners have no rightto be in the under Section 145 CrC The Honble Court held Ill Nlohd Shafiuddill General Secretarv NlanaeinP committee Masiit AsarmewSharecf Rahmania Tallaadda Hyderabad and another Ve Statc of AP And others 2007 1 9RR4Crimina19430 that the Civil Court is comptentlO decide the qucstionof between the partiesand under Section 145 CrPC are onlybyway oftemporary lneasure andwhere thefleld is not occupiedbythe civil Court It has further becn hcld that ion case the civil are pending under Section 145 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.11 12: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 418 n4 1 CrlMisc NoMe 37133 of2007 171 cannotbe allowed and are liable to be quashed In view of the discussioninadeabove thereis no merit in thc submissionsmade by the learned counsel for thc petitionershe pctilion beingdevoid ofanymeritis dismissed DAYA CHAUDHARYI JUDGE 10 August3 3 2010 raehav 0 Il 9 I 4A I S l11 Z Ii I 0 Z Om KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.11 12: 33 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document