IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.71 of 2008 SUMITRA JALAN A Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2. 14.11.2008. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by S.D.M., Patna Sadar in Case No.646 (M) of 2007 thereby in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C., rule issued has been vacated in favour of the opposite party no.2 and the same has been made absolute against the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner not to interfere in the possession of the opposite party till decision by the competent Civil Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that beyond the jurisdiction, the court below in a summary proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. has decided the title and possession in favour of the opposite party and has permanently restrained the petitioner not to go on the disputed land. It is further submitted that the force of order in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. is limited to a period of sixty days only but the order has been made effective even after lapse of period of sixty days. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has exceeded its jurisdiction and has wrongly entered into the factum of actual possession and title of the parties. It further appears that the court below has also wrongly - 2 - N.H./ restrained the petitioner permanently from going over the disputed land. The well settled principle of law is that the effect of any order passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. is limited to a period of only sixty days. Therefore, any observation made in the impugned order shall not prejudice any of the parties beyond the period of sixty days, which has already been elapsed. With this observation, this application stands disposed of. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )