J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 6th August, 2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and City Deputy Collector (East), Ahmedabad, in M.A.G./C.R.P.C. -145/Case No. 6 of 2011. By the said order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under Sec. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered attachment of the property in question, directing the Police Inspector of the Odhav Police Station to be in-charge of the disputed property till the rights of the parties were determined by the competent Civil Court.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be summarised as under:

"The dispute between the parties is with respect to an industrial shed constructed on Plot No. 336 of the Gujarat Vehpari Mahamandal Sahakari Audhyogik Vasahat Limited, situated at Odhav."

3. To put it briefly, the case of the private respondents herein before the authority was that the industrial shed running in the name of the H.K. Engineering Works is a partnership asset. According to the private respondents, a partnership deed was executed between them and the petitioner herein and the business was to be carried out jointly by the partners. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner herein is that although there is a partnership deed entered into between the parties, yet the partnership deed has nothing to do with the disputed property. The partnership deed is with respect to some other business. According to the petitioner, he is the sole owner of the H.K. Engineering Works situated at the Plot No. 336 as referred to above.

4. Thus, on one hand, the private respondents herein claim to be the partners of the plot and the shed in question, whereas the petitioner claims to be the sole owner of the shed standing on Plot No. 336.

5. It appears that on account of such dispute between the parties, an offence was also registered being II-CR No. 11 at the Odhav Police Station for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The private respondents herein initiated proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedabad, numbered as 6 of 2011. It appears that notices were issued to the respective parties in the proceedings in that regard and the Police Inspector of the Odhav Police Station also filed his report in that regard. The Police Inspector of the Odhav Police Station expressed apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility on account of the serious dispute between the parties as regards the property in question.

7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate also took notice of the fact that the petitioner herein had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 650 of 2011 in the Court of the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, for a declaration and injunction, however, till me date of the passing of the impugned order, the learned City Civil Judge had not passed any orders on the Notice of Motion.

8. Taking into consideration the dispute between the parties and the apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate finally took the view that it was not possible to arrive at any definite conclusion as to which of the parties was in possession of the property, and therefore, thought fit to pass an order of attachment and appointed the Police Inspector of the Odhav Police Station as the Receiver to take care of the property.

9. The petitioner herein, the opponent in the original proceedings, being dissatisfied, has come up with this petition.

10. Mr. Mrudul Barot, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. Mr. Barot submitted that when a civil litigation was pending for the property wherein the question of right, title and interest of the property including the question of possession is involve