Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1505 of 2018 1. Sukhiram S/o Johansingh Siwane Aged About 67 Years R/o- Village Bagdai, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ramkishore S/o Johansingh Siwane Aged About 62 Years R/o- Village Bagdai, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3. Hemant Kumar S/o Tuleshwar Prasad Aged About 36 Years R/o- Village Bagdai, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4. Piyush Kumar S/o Tuleshwar Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o- Village Bagdai, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5. Ku. Chhayarani D/o Tuleshwar Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o- Village Bagdai, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Chaitkunwar W/o Tuleshwar Prasad Aged About 55 Years R/o - Village Bagdai, Tahsil- Gurur, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1. Devnarayan S/o Late Dhursingh Siwane Aged About 50 Years R/o- Village Amora, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2. Leelabai D/o Late Dhursing Siwane (Husband Udailal Thakur), Aged About 50 Years R/o- Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 3. Talstay @ Tikamsingh S/o Dhursingh Siwane Aged About 46 Years R/o- Village Bagdai, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4. Rakeshchand S/o Dhursingh Siwane Aged About 39 Years R/o- Village Bagdai, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 28.04.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) passed in Criminal Revision No. 14/2018, whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners afÏrming the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balod, in Criminal Case No. 407/2006. 3. Brief facts of the case is that a Civil Suit was filed between the parties, which was decided by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Balod, vide judgment and decree dated 08.10.2009. Against that decision, a 3 civil appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Balod. The learned District Judge vide judgment dated 27.04.2016 allowed the appeal filed by the present petitioners and declared that the appellants along with defendant Dhursingh, are co-owners of the property mentioned in Schedule A, B, and C. They will be owners of their respective properties as per the 'Shartnama' (Exhibit P-1) and partition deed (Exhibit P-2). They were also declared possession holders of the said property. 4. Pursuant to the judgment and decree, the present applicants moved an application before the S.D.M., Balod, to distribute the amount lying before the S.D.M. due to attachment of property and appointment of a receiver, as per the judgment passed by the District Judge dated 27.04.2016. The applicants requested that the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. be dropped. 5. Against the said judgment and decree, respondent No. 3-Taalstay, preferred Second Appeal No. 276/16. On July 1, 2016, the Second Appeal was admitted on a question of law, and it was directed that proceedings may continue, but a final order shall not be passed. The respondents filed the order dated 01.07.2016 passed in Second Appeal No. 276/2016, before the S.D.M., Balod. On 19.08.2016, the S.D.M., Balod, stayed the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. until further orders. Vide order dated 31.01.2018, the S.D.O., Balod, continued the order of attachment of warrant passed earlier, wherein the Sarpanch was appointed as receiver. The S.D.O. directed that the present 4 Sarpanch would be the receiver and would take care of the property. It was recorded that until the Second Appeal is finally decided by the High Court, the case cannot be closed, and the proceedings can only be dropped after the final order by the High Court. 6. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order passed by the S.D.O., preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Balod. Vide impugned order dated 28.04.2018, the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that First Additional Sessions Judge while recording the finding that a receiver has been appointed and the second appeal is pending consideration before the High Court, in this view, the Court held that no harm would be caused to any party, as the amount is lying before the trial Court has committed grave legal error which warrants interference by this Court. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the orders passed by the learned revisional Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 10. From perusal of the records of the revisional Court, it transpires that the revisional Court has held that in Case No. 407/2006 under Sections 145 & 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, between 5 Sukhiram and others versus Dhursingh, the Court ordered on 4.5.2011 that the disputed land be handed over to the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bagdai and Sonhapur. The Sarpanch of both Gram Panchayats, in compliance with the Court's order, deposited the auction amount from 2011 to 2014 with the trial Court. Meanwhile, an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Balod, in Appeal No. 47A/2014, Sukhiram versus Dhursingh (deceased), which was allowed on 27.04.2016. The appeal was subsequently challenged before this Court in Second Appeal No. 276/2016, which is pending for consideration. The Court also appointed the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bagdai and Sonhapur as the receiver of the disputed land. The Court ordered that the current Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat would be the receiver of the disputed land and would take care of it. The Court also noted that the trial Court had deposited the attached amount and appointed a receiver to protect the disputed land. Therefore, the Court held that
Decision
neither party would suffer any loss or damage. In view of the above, the Court held that the trial Court had followed the High Court's order in Second Appeal No. 276/2016. Therefore, the revisionist's revision was rejected, and the trial Court's order dated 31.01.2018 was upheld. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court is just and proper. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, pleading made in this petition and also considering the impugned order passed by the revisional Court, I am of the considered opinion that the revisional Court has not committed any 6 illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.23 17:48:23 +0530