Chhakan Ram vs Raghunath Ram

James, J.—Raghunath Ram was a tenant of Kishun Ram in a shop in Gaya. The shop is divided into two rooms by a partition, but there is only one entrance which can be locked. Raghunath Ram had allowed Chhakan Ram to carry on, business in one of the divisions of the room, which can only be readied through the room in which Raghunath Ram himself carries on business. Chhakan Ram in September obtained from the proprietor a lease of the portion of the shop of which he was in possession. Raghunath Ram then locked the entrance door of his shop and kept it locked, whereby Chhakan Ram was excluded from entry. Chhakan then sent a telegram to the Superintendent of Police who directed the Local Sub-Inspector to look into the matter. A report was then made to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, with a recommendation that Raghunath Ram might he restrained under S. 144, Criminal P.C., from interfering with the peaceful possession of Chhakan Ram, proceedings were taken under S. 144 which resulted ultimately in an order first that Chhakan Ram must abstain from interfering with the lock which Raghunath Ram had placed on his door ? and secondly, that Raghunath Ram should on 4th October, give facilities to Chhakan Ram to remove his goods from the shop if he desired to do so.

An application to the District Magistrate against this order was rejected, and the High Court was then moved in revision, but the effect of the order under S. 144 has now expired by lapse of time, and I can neither confirm nor set aside, since to confirm it would not bring it to life and to set it aside would not render it any more dead than it is at present. The propriety of the order whereby the Magistrate assumes the function of the Civil Court and makes an order which practically amounts to an order of ejectment on grounds of title may certainly be questioned; though he may be technically justified by the fact that he records his apprehension of a breach of the peace by which I suppose it is to be understood that he apprehended an affray at the door of the shop, when one party desired that the door should be opened and the other party desired that it should not. But the effect of the order, as I have said has expired; and I understand that the matter is now before the Civil Court. The application for revision of the order is dismissed.