C. B. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) AS common question of law has been raised, these two revision applications are being disposed of by this judgment.

( 2 ) BOTH these applications arise out of the proceedings under Section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate before whom the proceedings were instituted, referred the question of possession to a Civil court under Section 146 (i) of the Code and after receiving the finding from the civil Court, disposed of the proceedings. A revision application was preferred against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the Sessions judge, but he held that "the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has done what was required by law to do". He has not given his own finding. He has given his finding on the basis of the findings communicated to him by the learned Civil Judge. Under these circumstances as there is no judgment of the Magistrate himself no revision lies. A preliminary objection has been raised that no revision lies in such cases. It is also urged that even if a revision lies its scope is limited to the extent that the Court has to satisfy itself whether the order of the learned Magist