ORDER

1. The brief facts relating to this case are: that in proceedings instituted under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. the second party, the respondent herein was declared to be in possession of the property, two months prior to the date of the preliminary order. Against this order, the first party preferred a revision to the District Magistrate and as both the parties were absent on that date, the District Magistrate dismissed the revision petition for default. A restoration petition was filed by the revision petitioner which was allowed. Against this order allowing the restoration petition, the second party preferred a revision to the High Court. The admission Judge, without going into the merits of the revision, passed an order directing the Magistrate to go into the question as to whether a restoration petition would lie in a criminal case. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the objection that no restoration petition would lie was taken before the District Magistrate and that he had not decided the matter. When the case went back to the District Magistrate, the perron who heard the case was one different from the Magistrate who allowed the restoration petition. This latter District