Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1914 DIGILAW 63 (CAL)

Probhat Chandro Chatterjee v. Prossanno Kumar Sen

1914-02-13

body1914
JUDGMENT 1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Faridpur and the Opposite Party to show cause why the order under sec. 145 should not be set aside as made without jurisdiction, inasmuch as there was a subsisting order under sec. 522 which rendered any order under sec. 145 ultra vires. What we understood by the subsisting order under sec. 522 was the order by which the Criminal Court had as a matter of fact restored possession to the person who had been ejected from the property by criminal violence. But having heard from the learned Counsel on both sides the actual facts in connection with this case, we find that possession under sec. 522 was never as a fact delivered to the Petitioner and that there was no bar to any proceeding under sec. 145, which the Magistrate whose concern under that section is only with the peace of his district was entitled to take. It is in vain to say that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to stay his own order under sec. 522 or that the effect of the conviction being set aside by the High Court does not necessarily do away with the order under sec. 522 and a specific order must be passed by the Appellate Court setting it aside. All that is perfectly true as a proposition of law ; but here as in all questions of possession we have to deal with what is purely a question of fact, and the facts being as they are we find that the order purporting to have been passed under sec. 522 on the 22nd February 1913 was infructuous and was never carried out, and it was therefore no bar to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under sec. 145. To hold otherwise would be to take grave risks of continual breaches of the peace in connection with matters which had been dealt with by judicial orders which had never been carried out. The mere fact that an order has been obtained cannot possibly oust the jurisdiction of another Court which has to deal with the preservation of the peace in face of the fact that the previous order has never been carried out. 2. The Rule must therefore be discharged.