An order passed under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, attaching the subject of dispute until a competent court determines the rights of the parties, is an interlocutory order and not revisable under Section 397(2) of the Code.

1. Proceedings under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) were instituted in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Narwana against Basanta and others respondent-party No. 1. and Sishu and others-respondent party No. 2. In the police report, it was mentioned that there was serious dispute between the parties about possession over some agricultural land and there was likelihood of breach of peace. The learned Magistrate issued notice to the parties under Sec. 145(1) of the Code. In compliance of the notice, the parties appeared. Some affidavits and documents were filed. On 6-11-1979 the learned Magistrate passed the following impugned order :-

"Whereas it has been reported by the police Uchana that there does exist a dispute likely to cause breach of peace between the parties mentioned above, respecting the land bearing Killa Nos. 114/1/2, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 158//10, 11, 20, 21, 159//6/2 7/2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 344, 408/1, 55//22/4/ measuring 184 kanals 7 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Surbura Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, within my local jurisdiction and whereas I am satisfied that the dispute over the possession of the land is likely to cause a breach of peace. Notice was already given to the parties for the respective claims and counter-claims."

"2. I am of the opinion that the case is one of the emergency and none of the party is able to satisfy as to which of them is in such possession of subject of the disputed land. 3. There is a great tension and both the parties are likely to create breach of peace and finding no alternative. I hereby attach the disputed land until a competent Court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to person entitled to the possession thereof.

4. In view of the above circumstances, I appoint the Tehsildar. Narwana (Circle Revenue Officer) as a Receiver thereof. He will look after the property and dispose of the produce etc. under rules. The fee of the receiver is fixed Rs. 75.00 per month.

5. The file be consigned in the record room after due compliance."

2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the contesting respondents, who were first party before the learned Magistrate to the effect that in view of Sec. 397(2) of the Code, the present revision petition is not maintainable because the impugned order is of interlocutory nature.

3. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the proviso appended to S.146(1) of the Code. S.146(1) reads as follows :-

"If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under Sub-Sec (1) of Sec. 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decided that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Sec. 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof; Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute."

As none of the parties was able to satisfy as to which of them was in possession of the land in dispute, the learned Magistrate passed the above order admittedly under Sec. 146(1) and (2) of the Code as he considered it to be a case of emergency. Therefore, the first question to be considered is whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order or not.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the present order cannot be said to be in interlocutory order because the rights of the parties to some extent have been decided inasmuch as the petitioners are being deprived of the possession over the land in dispute. He has cited Amar Nath V/s. State of Haryana, 1977 Chand LR (Cri) 2