When a civil suit is pending regarding the same property, there is no need to invoke Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, as the civil court is already seized of the matter.

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by Des Raj, Ramji Dass and Smt, Lajo against the order dated 5th July, 1970, of Shri Dev Raj Saini, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, by which he dismissed their revision petition against the order dated 27th January. 1970, of Dalip Singh Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura.

2. The facts of this case are that one Mst. Akki widow of Badri Parshad was owner of land measuring 30 Bighas situate in two villages and on her death which took place in September, 1966, this land was mutated by the revenue authorities in the names of Ramji Dass, Des Raj, Dwarka Dass and Mst. Lajo, vide mutation order No. 342 decided on 31st January, 1967, and mutation order No. 255 decided on 31st January, 1967. Against these orders Sat Pal respondent who is the son of Dwarka Dass filed an appeal in the Court of the Collector alleging that on the basis of a will executed by Mst. Akki in his favour he was entitled to inherit the land and the same should be mutated in his favour. This appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 28th February, 1968. Sat Pal then filed a civil suit against Des Raj, Ramji Dass, Dwarka Dass and Mst. Lajo regarding this land in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajpura, district Patiala, on or about 29th February, 1968. The Subordinate Judge was stated to have issued an order on 2nd May, 1968, that status quo regarding possession of land may be maintained. It appears that later on there was some dispute regarding possession of this land and the police submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Rajpura, on 6th November, 1969, stating that there was a dispute likely to cause breach of peace regarding this land and action may be taken under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 6th November, 1969, and appointed Shri Bachittar Singh Tehsildar Rajpura, as Receiver of this land in dispute. After hearing the parties the Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that since civil Suit regarding this land between the parties was pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge; Rajpura, therefore, he thought that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and by his order dated 27th January, 1970, he dropped those proceedings and vacated the attachment order dated 6th November, 1969. However, he directed the police that since the relations between the parties were strained, action be taken under Sec. 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code. Against this order Des Raj, Ramji Dass and Mst. Lajo filed a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri D. R. Saini, on 5th September, 1970. Feeling aggrieved they filed this revision petition alleging that the order of the lower Court was wrong and it may be set aside and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may be directed to give his decision in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or Executive Magistrate of the First Class is satisfied from the police report or otherwise that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists concerning any land within the local limits of his jurisdiction he shall make an order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties to attend his Court in person and to put in written statement regarding their respective claims. Thereafter he has to hold enquiry regarding the possession of this land within two months from the date of appearing of the parties before him. Section 145 (10) of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under Sec. 107. However Section 146, Cr. P.C. says if the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in possession or he was unable