The Magistrate's role under Section 146 (1B) of the CrPC is limited to implementing the finding of the civil court on the question of possession, and therefore, providing notice to the parties before passing the final order is not required.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who was the first party in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P C. obtained this Rule against the learned Magistrate's order passed under Section 146 (IB) of the Code declaring the opposite party to he entitled to possession of the land concerned and restraining the first party from disturbing such possession except in due course of law.

( 2 ) ON January 7, 1964, the first party applied to the sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barrackpore under Section 144 Cr. P C. The application was sent to the police for enquiry and report and on receipt of the police report the learned Magistrate on being satisfied that there is a dispute concerning land which is likely to cause a breach of peace drew up proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. That was on February 17, 1964. After the parties had filed written statements, documents and affidavits the learned Magistrate considered the matter and came to the finding that he was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of the dispute. Thereupon he drew up a statement of the facts of the case and forwarded the record of the proceeding to the civil court under Sub-section (1) of Section 146

( 3 ) THE learned munsif of Sealdah on receipt of the reference examined witnesses and decided the question of possession in favour of the second party and the Magistrate on receipt of the finding of the civil Court disposed of the proceeding in conformity with that decision as required under Sub-section (1b) of Section 146 it is the order of the learned Magistrate disposing of the proceeding which is the subject matter of the present Rule.

( 4 ) MR. Mukherjee appearing in support of the Rule raised 4 objections against the legality of the order passed in the proceeding and they are--1. That the order passed by the learned Magistrate is bad in law inasmuch as no notice was served on the parties before recording the same. 2. That the finding of the civil Court is vitiated by the fact that the relevant date with reference to which possession of the partiet, was to be determined and has been determined is incorrect and that as such the Magistrate's order passed in conformity with that decision is bad in law. 3. That the proceeding is further vitiated by the fact that possession has been declared also in favour of opposite party No 4 who was not a party to the preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code. 4. That the order is bad in law as it carries no finding as to which of the opposite parties is in possession of which portion of the disputed property.

( 5 ) THE record with the finding of the civil court was received back by the learned Magistrate on July 16, 1966 and on the same date without hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate passed the final order in the proceeding in conformity with the finding of the civil court. According to Mr. Mukherjee, this has entailed a denial of natural justice to his client, the first party. The argument advanced in this regard is that when an order is going to be passed against a particular party, natural justice demands that he be given an opportunity of being heard and that an adverse decision made behind the back of a party and without giving him that opportunity, implies a denial of natural justice and must as such be struck down. In this connection reference is made to Sub-section (4) of Section 145 which requires the parties to be heard before a finding as to possession is arrived at. Mr. Mukherjee also refers to certain decisions which have taken the view that even in cases where the law does not require the parties to be heard before making an order, a proper exercise of discretion would demand that a party should be heard in a proceeding wherein the decision may go against him.

( 6 ) REFERENCE is made in this connection to an English decision in Thorbum v. Barnes, (1866) 2 C. P. 384. There in an arbitration proceeding, the arbitrators without giving one of the parties an opportunity