The pendency of a civil suit and an injunction order in respect of the same property does not oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 145, Cr. P. C. However, the Magistrate should not proceed with the proceedings if the Civil Court has already adjudicated upon the question of possession.

( 1 ) SMT. Minta Devi wife of Mithai Lal and her sons Vijay Kumar, Sanjai Kumar and Ajai Kumar have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 23-3-1996 of Shri Brahm Singh, Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra, allowing Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1995 against the judgment and order dated 11-9-1995 of Shri Yogesh Srivastava, S. D. M. Robertsganj in Criminal Case No. 8 of 1995 under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The learned S. D. M. had held that the applicants, first party in the proceedings, were in possession of the disputed property and he directed the sole respondent Anant Ram alias Antu the second party in the proceedings, not to interfere with the possession of the first party. By means of the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision and has released the property in favour of Anant Ram respondent holding that he was in possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order.

( 2 ) THE disputed property consists of Abadi plot Nos. 1577, 1578 and 1579 (area 18 dhurs measuring 16 ft. x 77 ft.) The proceedings started on the application of smt. Minta Devi also alleged that even though she was in possession Anant Ram wanted to tale forcible possession of the property and thus there was apprehension of breach of peace. On 10-7-1995 the learned S. D. M. called for a police report which came on the very next day supporting the allegations of Smt. Minta Devi and it was further mentioned in the police report that there was a broken thatched hut over the disputed land. Accordingly on 22-7-1995 the learned S. D. M. passed the preliminary order directing both the parties to produce their evidence is support of their respective claim of possession. On the same day, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed another order under Section 146, Cr. P. C, attaching the property. It may be observed here that in the attachment order it was mentioned that there may be breach of peace at any time. However, the order fails to record in clear words the satisfaction of the learned S. D. M. that it was a case of emergency. On the following day, that is, on 23-7-95 the police attached the property. In the attachment memo there is a mention that on the spot there was a hut made of tin.

( 3 ) ON the very next day i. e. 24-7-1995 respondent Anant Ram alias Antu filed an objection. He also filed his affidavit. It was pleaded by Anant Ram that he and his father late Satya Narain were in possession for the last 34 to 35 years as tenant of one Todarmal of Mohalla Budulkhandi in the city of Mirzapur. They carried on "arhat" of Gur and other business styled as "satya Narain Prasad Anant Ram" and after the death of his father the business of the firm was carried on by himself (Anant Ram) and his brother Santosh Kumar. It was stated that the landlord, Todarmal had authorised Smt. Rajwanti wife of Late Chhotan Lal to receive the rent and Smt. Rajwanti had also kept a Gumti in which she was resided. Thus respondent Anant Ram and his brother Santosh Kumar were carrying on arhat of Gur and business in salt, chilli and other general merchandise and were in possession of the disputed property. The further case of respondent Anant Ram was that in his life time Todarmal executed will in favour of Rajwanti because. Todarmal had lot of regard for Smt. Rajwanti. She as well as her husband Chhotan Lal had been with Todarmal throughout Todarmals life and served him. It was further stated that in the year 1981 the first party Mithai Lal husband of Minta Devi applicant started threatening respondent Anant Ram etc. to oust them by force and hence Civil suit being C. S. No. 233 of 1991 for injunction was filed by Anant Ram Santosh Kumar and on 24-12-1991 the Court issued notice and granted injunction prohibiting the defendants from evicting the plaintiff of the suit. Amongst the defendants Mithai Lal (husband of applicant No. 1) Minta Devi and father of applicants Vijai Kumar, Sanjai Kumar and Ajai Kumar) was impleaded