M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there are mistakes patent on the record to the effect that the order of Hon'ble Ujagar Singh J. to the effect that the criminal miscellaneous challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, appointing a receiver in the proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, be decided along with the application for the appointment of receiver, was not taken note of. It is further contended that connected civil miscellaneous viz for vacation of the stay order in the criminal miscellaneous for quashing the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. etc. were not listed for hearing and they have not been disposed of Lastly, it is submitted that there are other sufficient grounds for reviewing the order dated 7-2-1989 passed in the civil miscellaneous No. 1550-CI of 1988, which was only a contempt petition. It is further contended that the impugned order has resulted in grave injustice and therefore, it is liable to be reviewed. In order to support his submissions, the applicant contends that in Regular Second Appeal No. 1701 of 1987 notice of motion was issued on 13-5-1987 and it was ordered that status quo be maintained. Subsequently; this appeal was admitted on 17-8-1987. Thereafter applications for vacation of stay order as well as for initiating the contempt proceedings were preferred The appellant further preferred civil miscellaneous Nos. 105-C and 394-C of 1988, seeking the appointment of a receiver. It is pointed out that a receiver was appointed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 21-12-1987 in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. PC. which order was under challenge in this Court. There was another Crl Misc. application No. 258 of 1988 preferred in this Court wherein vacation of the stay order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was sought. The Local Commissioner was appointed by this Court vide order dated 24-5-1988, to find regarding the possession of the land in dispute, at the spot, who reported on 30-5-1988 that, the assertion of the respondent having sown some crops on the land in dispute was false
2. It is vehemently contended that since all the matters had been listed, this matter could not have been decided in the absence of the applications which were not listed With regard to Khasra Girdawaris, it is contended that Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, envisages that when to a Court, it appears just and convenient to appoint a receiver, the same should be appointed and the conduct of the parties is not a relevant consideration while determining the application for the appointment of a receiver
3. The applicant claims that equity is in his favour as he is the owner of the property in dispute Not only this, the Criminal Court has appointed receiver and that order should be taken note of and rather should be confirmed as the order for appointment of a receiver by a Criminal Court being an interlocutory order, cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Resultantly, the Civil Court is left with no alternative except to confirm the order of the Criminal Court for appointment off the receiver. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant relies1 on Smt. Soma alias Sahib Kaur. v. Gumam Singh and Anr., 1984 (2) C. L. R. 512. and Kartar Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Pritam Kaur and Anr., 1985 (1) C. L. R. 338. In the alternative it is contended that in case the order of the criminal Court is accepted to be final, this application for appointment of receiver becomes infructuous
4. It is also contended that after the Civil Court has ordered the status quo, the Criminal Courts were competent to intiate proceedings under Section 145, Crl. P. C. and those proceedings are valid. In order to support his contention, he relies on Mohinder Singh v. Shri Dilbagh Rai, (1976) 78 P. L. R. 803, Jagdish alias Jagdish Kumar v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, (1987-1) 91 P. L. R. 206., Ram Pal v. Harish Chand, 1987 (2) C. L. R. 138. and Kuldip Singh Sahni v. The State of Punjab, 1988 (1) C.L.R. 392.
5. A reference was made in the course of arguments with respect to the powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and when they are to be exercised. In this regard, reliance has been made on Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 47 and Balwani Singh Sekhon v. Balvinder Singh Shergil, 1989(1) C. L. R. 103.
6. With respect to the consideration to be taken note of while appointing a receiver, reference has been made to Ram Kishore Dass v. Balram Sah, A. I. R. 1978 Patna 210, Nihalchand L. Jai Narain v. Ram Niwas Munna Lal, A.I.R. l968 Punj. & Hry. 523. It has been canvassed that there are no hard and fast rules with respect to the appointment of receiver nor the fact that a party is in possession of the property in dispute can be an impediment for the appointment of a receiver. A receiver can be appointed keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in view. A distinction was pointed out in this regard in the case Dilman Raj v. Srinarayan Sharma, A.I.R. 1983 Sikkim 11 and it is stated that this case is pari materia neither on facts nor on Saw- Lastly, the learned counsel for the applicant states that he is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 3,200/-per acre per annum in the Court, if the possession is got delivered to him It is further pointed out that the order under review does not specify the period for which the mesne profits have been ordered and nothing has been stated with respect to the delivery of possession of the land in dispute after the litigation comes to an end.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contends that there are no sufficient grounds for the review. It is stated at the bar that the respondent undertakes to deliver the possession of the land in dispute to the applicant in case the appeal is allowed within three months from the date of the disposal of the appeal.
8. In my considered view, all the facts stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the applicant were on the record and the counsel for the parties were conscious of these facts and the same were taken note of and the older was passed in view of the relevant undisputed facts stated or agreed to by the counsel for the parties in the course of arguments in Court. The mistakes patent on the record pointed out by the learned counsel are of no consequences because we cannot go merely by the numbers given or mentioned in the order disposing the civil miscellaneous. The order has to be read in its entirety. Mere non-mentioning of the number of an application is irrelevant and while doing justice substantial justice is to be taken note of and not the pin-pricking in the order. At the time of arguments, no objection was taken with respect to the non listing of the civil miscellaneous. Listing is a formal act just to bring to the notice of the parties that their matters will be decided on a particular date The parties were conscious of the fact that their applications were being heard together. No such objection was raised that other miscellaneous applications were not listed nor it was pointed out that there was no proper hearing given because of non-mentioning of the civil miscellaneous in the roster list. No prayer for adjournment at any point of time was made on the ground of non-listing of the said civil miscellaneous Lastly, I find no other sufficient ground to review the matter. Equity was kept in view. The offer of furnishing security at the rate of Rs. 2.200/. per acre per annum was made in the Court in presence of the parties, which was accepted. The order is abundantly clear that the security is for mesne profits from the date of the possession till the possession is delivered back to the successful party. The offer made at a higher amount at this stage, almost after lapse of 7 months is of no consequence. If offers and biddings are permitted in such fashion, then there will be no end to the litigation
9. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find no force in the review application and the same is hereby dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that there is no quarrel with the propositions of law convassed by the learned counsel for the applicant but these propositions are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly at this stage of review, apart from my doubts about the proposition that once a receiver has been appointed by a Criminal Court in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. a Civil Court has no option but to confirm the appointment of the receiver. The contention cannot be accepted particularly when civil litigation was already pending and the parties were at liberty to take appropriate orders from the Civil Court. It appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court to approach the Criminal Court in such a situation. I refrain myself from making any other observations. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is directed to be heard within a year.