AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rengasamy, J.—This revision is against the order of the Executive Magistrate (Thasildar) Vaniyambadi, North Arcot Ambedkar District in
MC.No.1/91 u/s 145 of Cr.P.C.
2.As the Sub Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi anticipated the breach of peace due to the rival claim in respect of the property mentioned in the
petition he referred the matter to the Executive Magistrate for passing necessary orders and in the meanwhile it appears that the respondents who
are the A Party filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners herein in OS.902 of 1991 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,
Tirupattur and also sought for interim injunction in IA.1176 of 1991. It is admitted by both sides that an interim injunction was passed in favour of
the A Party herein against the petitioners and the same is in force till now. The executive Magistrate taking into consideration of the Civil court''s
order and also on the strength of the evidence before him has given a finding that the A Party (respondents herein) are in possession and the B
Party shall not interfere with their possession. As against this order, the B Party has come forward with this revision. Though the Learned Counsel
for the revision petitioner challenges the correctness of the order of the Executive Magistrate, she would concede that there is a Civil Court order
for injunction as mentioned above restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession of the respondents - A Party. Therefore,
irrespective of the order of the Executive Magistrate, the revision petitioners are bound by the Civil Court''s order. The finding of the Civil court is
binding upon the Criminal Court and therefore, the Criminal Court cannot go against the order of the Civil Court. The Learned Counsel for the
revision petitioners'' only apprehension is that, in case if the Civil Court vacates the injunction or gives a finding in the appeal against A Party, the
right of the petitioners - B Party will be prejudiced, if this order of the learned Executive Magistrate is allowed to continue and therefore, sufficient
safeguard should be provided to the petitioners in this revision. Taking into consideration of this representation, I feel that the order of the
Magistrate must be allowed to continue in view of the Civil Court''s finding. But in case if the Civil Court gives a contrary finding in the appellate
Court on revisional forum that order will prevail as against this order of the executive Magistrate.
In the result, subject to the finality of the Civil Court''s finding in the proceedings initiated by the A Party - the respondents herein, this revision is
dismissed.