Purnendu Narayan v. Akhouri Jagannath Prasad — 1952 DIGILAW 2 (PAT)

Judgment Das, J. 1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Arrah, Sadr, dated the 24th of February, 1951, refusing an application of the petitioner to be added as a party to a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The short facts are these. On the 7th of June, 1950, there was a police report about an apprehension of a breach of the peace regarding a piece of land in Arrah town between Akhori Jagannath Prasad on one side and Bhubeneshwar Prasad on the other. On this police report a proceeding under S 144, Criminal P. C., was drawn up on the 8th of June, 1950. This proceeding was ultimately converted into a proceeding under Sec.145, Code of Criminal Procedure, on the 20th of July, 1950. In the original proceeding the parties were Akhouri Jagannath Prasad, first party and Bhubneshwar Prasad, second party. I may state here that Srimati Radhika Devi, opposite party No. 3 before me, is the wife of Babu Bhubneshwar Prasad, second party before the learned Magistrate. It appears that on some petition filed on behalf of Akhouri Jagannath Prasad near about August 1950 some more persons were added as parties, namely, Saheb Roza Mian and Mt. Jaitunnissa. Srimati Radhika Devi, wife of Bhubneshwar Prasad, was also added as a party. 2. I may indicate here very briefly the nature of the claims of the two principal parties to the dispute. Akhouri Jagannath Prasad claimed to be in possession on the basis of a settlement alleged to have been made by Mt. Sahidanand Saheb Roza. Mt. Sahidan, it may be stated here, was the mother-in-law of Mt. Jaitunnissa. Bhubneshwar Prasad and his wife Radhika Devi claimed to have purchased the property from Saheb Roza and claimed to be in possession on the strength or that purchase. The proceedings were amended by adding the parties, and then on the 1st of February, 1951, the enquiry began. Some witnesses were examined on that date some more witnesses were examined on the 6th February, 1951, and again on the 12th of February, 1951. On the 22nd of February 1951, the present petitioner made an application to be added as a party. The petitioner claimed to be added as a party on the strength of a sale deed alleged to have been executed by Mt. On the 22nd of February 1951, the present petitioner made an application to be added as a party. The petitioner claimed to be added as a party on the strength of a sale deed alleged to have been executed by Mt. Jaitunnissa on the 13th of July, 1950. It was stated that the consideration for the sale deed was paid as late as the 8th of February 1951; that is, after the enquiry had already proceeded for a considerable time. The application which the petitioner made to be added as a party, after the enquiry had begun, was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated the 22nd of February, 1951. On the 24th of February, 1951, the petitioner again applied to be substituted in place of Jaitunnissa. That petition was again rejected. The petitioner then moved the learned Sessions Judge without any success. Then he moved this Court on which the present rule was issued. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the expression "parties concerned" occurring in Sub-section (1) of Sec.145, Criminal P. C., should not be construed narrowly and should be so construed as to include persons who claim to be in possession after a notice of the order has been served as required by Sub-section (3) of Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in LEELA SINGH V/s. B. P. SINGH, 27 Pat L T 484. The question before me is not really about the meaning of the words "parties concerned" occurring in Sub-section (1) of Sec.145. The question before me is whether any person who claims to be interested in the dispute can as a matter of right, claim to be added as a party after the enquiry has commenced. The legal position with regard to that question has been clearly stated in the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in KRISHNA KAMINI V/s. ABDUL JUBBAR, 30 Cal. 155. Hill, J., with whom the majority of Judges concurred, stated as follows: "It would lead to much inconvenience and delay, if it were held that any one claiming to be concerned in the dispute was entitled to come in and join in the proceedings after the commencement of the enquiry. 155. Hill, J., with whom the majority of Judges concurred, stated as follows: "It would lead to much inconvenience and delay, if it were held that any one claiming to be concerned in the dispute was entitled to come in and join in the proceedings after the commencement of the enquiry. It would probably be necessary in such a case to start the inquiry afresh as the party added would have a right to have the evidence taken in his presence, and, if several claimants successively were to come in, in this way, it is evident that the proceedings might be indefinitely prolonged. I do not say that, if the Magistrate for sufficient reasons thought proper after the commencement of the inquiry to bring in an additional party, that his proceedings would therefore be bad, but I think that he would in doing so be acting in contravention of the intention of the Legislature." If I may say so with respect, the legal position is correctly stated in the aforesaid observations. 4 In the case before me, it is clear that the real parties, who were claiming to be in possession at the relevant date, are Akhouri Jagannath Prasad on one side and Bhubneshwar Prasad and his wife on" the other. Mt. Jaitunnissa, from whom the petitioner is stated to have purchased the property in dispute, never claimed to be in possession at the relevant date. Even the petitioner does not himself claim anywhere that he was in possession at relevant date or came to be in possession thereafter. All that the petitioner is stating is that he has made a purchase from Mt. Jaitunnissa. It is to be observed that an enquiry under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is restricted to an enquiry as to actual physical possession irrespective of the question of right to possession. It is not necessary for me to make any pronouncement as to the validity or otherwise of the sale deed of the petitioner. All that need be stated is that the enquiry had already commenced and the learned Magistrate was justified in refusing to add the petitioner as a party at that late stage of the enquiry. It is not necessary for me to make any pronouncement as to the validity or otherwise of the sale deed of the petitioner. All that need be stated is that the enquiry had already commenced and the learned Magistrate was justified in refusing to add the petitioner as a party at that late stage of the enquiry. As a matter of fact, the enquiry has now reached a stage when the evidence of the witnesses of the first party has already been taken, and some of the witnesses of the second party have also been examined. In these circumstances I do not think that the petitioner can, as a matter of right, claim to be added as a party to the enquiry, particularly when the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest did not claim to have been in possession at the relevant date. 5. For the reasons given above, I see no merit in the application and the rule is accordingly discharged.