Skip to content


Bhagwati Singh and ors. Vs. V.P. Trivedi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1957CriLJ274
AppellantBhagwati Singh and ors.
RespondentV.P. Trivedi and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....no order can be passed by the court without making that person against whom that order has been passed a party to the proceedings. it was urged on behalf of the state that there were applications filed by these persons and they were annexures 5 of the affidavit. a perusal of those applications shows that they are not really applications, they are only statements of the applicants which were recorded by the station officer and in those statements it was only said that they had been only tenants and had been paying rent to debi dayal from a long time. if the s. d. m. wished to pass an order, he should have made these persons party to the proceedings and unless they are made parties to the proceedings and given an opportunity, no order of eviction should have been passed against them, i.....
Judgment:
ORDER

V.D. Bhargava, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The petitioners were the tenants of a portion of a house having settlement No. 178 and Town Area No. 267 in village and Police Station Maurawan district Unnao. It was alleged by the petitioners that they had been in possession of this premises for over two years and had been paying rent to one Debi Dayal. On the 11th of June 1954, Gur Prasad Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in the Court of S. D. M. Purwa against Debi Dayal and others in respect of this premises. On the 2nd of August 1954 an attachment was ordered of this house. It is said that the Station Officer made a report that this house was in possession of the petitioners. On the 28th of August 1954 the then S. D. M. ordered that the tenants paying rents residing therein shall continue and the rent shall be paid to the Supurdar. I think that was the proper procedure pending the final disposal of the application. The then S. D. M. was succeeded by Sri V. P. Trivedi, the present Opposite Party No. 1 who by his order dated the 30th January 1956 ordered that the applicants be ejected from the premises.

2. Against that order the petitioners have come up to this Court.

3. The main ground urged by the petitioners is that they could not be ejected under Section 145, Cr. P. C. from the premises because they were neither parties nor any notice of the proceedings was served on them. They had no opportunity of contesting the application and showing to the Magistrate concerned that they were in legal possession of the house long before the dispute.

4. The contention of the applicants appears to be sound. No order can be passed by the Court without making that person against whom that order has been passed a party to the proceedings. It was urged on behalf of the State that there were applications filed by these persons and they were annexures 5 of the affidavit. A perusal of those applications shows that they are not really applications, they are only statements of the applicants which were recorded by the Station Officer and in those statements it was only said that they had been only tenants and had been paying rent to Debi Dayal from a long time. If the S. D. M. wished to pass an order, he should have made these persons party to the proceedings and unless they are made parties to the proceedings and given an opportunity, no order of eviction should have been passed against them, I accordingly allow this application and quash the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C, passed against the applicants, with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //