JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21.3.1998 and 23.3.1998 passed by the S.D.M, Bansdih and Sessions Judge, Ballia respectively. By the order dated 21.3.1998 the S.D.M, Bansdih had directed that earlier orders passed by his court on 12.8.1988 and 9.4.1991 may be implemented on the ground that there was no stay against those earlier orders. The Sessions Judge, Ballia had dismissed the revision against the order of the S.D.M dated 21.3.1998, which was for implementation of earlier orders dated 12.8.1988 and 9.4.1991 on the ground that the revision against those orders had already been rejected on 5.9.1991 by his predecessor Sessions Judge, Ballia. The writ petition bearing No. 6411 of 1991, which was thereafter preferred by the applicant/revisionist was also dismissed on 23.1.1992. Two contentions have been sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicant; firstly, that as ten years have elapsed after the order holding the applicant to be in possession under Section 145 Cr.P.C. dated 12.8.1988 passed by the SDM, therefore, it should be taken to have automatically lapsed and the same could not be implemented by the SDM by order dated 21.3.1992.
3. There is no substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the applicant because for a long time the applicant himself was preferring one revision after the another and thereafter a writ petition, which were all dismissed by the courts including the High Court.
4. The second contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a civil suit was pending between the parties before the civil court at Ballia and as the civil suit was pending, parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. ought not to have been permitted. The applicant, however, has not been able to show any order of the civil court or of the SDM under Section 145 Cr.P.C holding the applicant to be in possession or to be entitled to the possession of the property.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. , where in it was held as follows:
"In view of the fact that civil proceedings in respect of the disputed premises is pending before the competent civil court where interim reliefs have been prayed for and obtained, there appears to be no justification for continuing with the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C pending before the SDM."
6. It is significant that in the case of Ram Sumer (supra) the civil court had granted the interim relief prayed for and the matter was not kept open by way of a status quo order or otherwise without any determination on the question as to which was the proper party that should be entitled to an injunction in its favour and from preventing the other party from dispossessing that party.
7. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, however, has cited the case of Jhummamal alias Devandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., , wherein after considering the case of Ram Sumer (supra), the Apex Court held as follows:
"Although the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer case has held that a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter, but that does not mean that a concluded order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil court. An order made under Section 145 Cr PC deals only with the factum of possession of the party as on a particular day. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the civil court. The unsuccessful party therefore, must get relief only in the civil court. He may move the civil court with properly constituted suit. He may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right to possession. The civil court has jurisdiction to give a finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached."
(emphasis added)
8. This decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. only deals with the factum of possession of the party on a particular date, but that order has to subsist until there is an order of the civil court altering the possession. In the present case, I find that there is absolutely no order holding the applicant to be in possession or to be entitled to possession of the property. The orders of the SDM holding the opposite party No. 2 to be entitled to possession of the property have become final as the revision and writ petition filed by the applicant had been dismissed against the orders of the SDM dated 12.8.1988 and 4.3.1991.
9. There is, therefore, no force in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. The SDM, Bansdih is directed to take steps expeditiously in compliance of his order dated 21.3.1998 which was for implementation of the orders dated 12.8.1988 and 4.3.1991. It will, of course, be open to the applicant to obtain a clear order from the civil court altering that position, which would be binding on the parties.
10. The application is dismissed as above.