Finality of Civil Court possession findings bars revision; Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence.

A Civil Court's finding on possession on reference under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was treated as final, because the statute barred any appeal, review or revision against that finding. A Magistrate's order made in conformity with that final finding could not be reopened in revision under Sections 435 and 439, since revisional power cannot be used to indirectly challenge what the statute has made conclusive. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remained available in principle, but only to keep subordinate courts within jurisdiction; it was not a basis for reappreciating evidence or correcting mere factual error. On the facts, no interference was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding of the Civil Court under Section 146(1B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding possession could be challenged by appeal, review, or revision; (ii) whether an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 146(1B) in conformity with that finding could be challenged in revision under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; and (iii) whether such an order could nevertheless be interfered with by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the finding of the Civil Court under Section 146(1B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding possession could be challenged by appeal, review, or revision.

Analysis: Section 146(1D) expressly provides that no appeal shall lie from any finding of the Civil Court on reference under that section and that no review or revision of such finding shall be allowed. The finding made by the Civil Court on the issue of possession is therefore intended to be conclusive and is not open to challenge by the ordinary appellate or revisional process.

Conclusion: The finding of the Civil Court was final and could not be challenged by appeal, review, or revision.

Issue (ii): Whether an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 146(1B) in conformity with that finding could be challenged in revision under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The Magistrate, on receiving the Civil Court's finding, is bound to dispose of the proceeding in conformity with that decision. Where the Magistrate's order merely follows the Civil Court's finding, revisional interference under Sections 435 and 439 cannot be used to indirectly challenge what the statute has made final. The High Court may examine only whether the Magistrate acted in conformity with the finding, not the correctness of the finding itself.

Conclusion: An order of the Magistrate conforming to the Civil Court's finding could not be interfered with under Sections 435 and 439.

Issue (iii): Whether such an order could nevertheless be interfered with by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The supervisory power under Article 227 is not curtailed by the Code, but it is to be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of authority and not to correct mere errors or reappraise evidence. On the facts, the Civil Court had considered the affidavits and rejected them as belonging to interested persons, and the High Court was not justified in treating that as a failure to consider the material. The case did not warrant interference under Article 227.

Conclusion: Article 227 power survived in principle, but no interference was justified on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The statutory finality attached to the Civil Court's finding barred appellate and revisional challenge, and the High Court could not interfere with the Magistrate's conforming order under Sections 435 and 439; supervisory interference under Article 227 was also unwarranted on the facts, so the appeal succeeded and the Magistrate's order stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A Civil Court's finding on possession under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is final and immune from appeal, review, or revision, and a Magistrate's order passed in conformity with that finding cannot be revisited in criminal revision, while Article 227 cannot be used to correct mere factual errors or reappreciate evidence.

---