SAHGAL, J. :- The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, had before him a proceeding pending under S. 145 of the Criminal P. C. As the Magistrate was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the disputed property at the relevant time, he made a reference to the Civil Court under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference was decided by the Munsif of Akbarpur and he transmitted his finding thereon to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on receipt of that finding disposed of the proceeding before him in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court. Against that order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate an application in revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Faizabad. The Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that in view of an authority of this Court, the finding of the Civil Court could not be challenged in revision not only against that particular finding, but also in revision against the final order passed by the Magistrate on the basis of that finding. A contrary view of a Full Bench of the Patna High Court was cited before him but he being bound by the view of the Allahabad High Court could not help the applicant before him.

2. It is in these circumstances that an application was filed in revision before this Court. The matter came up before a learned single Judge of this Court who referred it to a Division Bench and that Bench finding in conflict of authority of this Court on the point in Ram Govind Singh v. Ram Nath, 1967 All WR (HC) 8 and Syed Hasan v. Munsif Havali, Lucknow, 1967 All WR (HC) 448 these two being the only authorities cited before that Bench, referred the matter to a Full Bench. That is how the matter comes up before us.

3. The short point to be decided in the case is as to whether when a reference is made to a Civil Court under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can the finding of the Civil Court which cannot be challenged in appeal, revision or review be challenged in revision against the order of the Magistrate after he has disposed of the proceeding before him under Section 145 in conformity with that finding ?

4. The trend of authority of this Court is to the effect that it cannot be so challenged : vide Taashuq Hussain v. State. 1958 All LJ 270 : (AIR 1959 All 568); Chokhey Lal Moti Ram v. Babu Lal Behari Lal. AIR 1960 All 599; Badri Nath Panday v. U. P. State, 1963 All LJ 1101 : (AIR 1965 All 127); 1967 All WR (HC) 8 and Guru Prasad Pandey v. State, 1967 All LJ 649. All these authorities except the last one are single Judge authorities, the last one being a decision of Division Bench. A discordant note has been struck only in the single Judge case of 1967 All WR (HC) 448.

5. There is, however, a majority decision of the Patna High Court in a Full Bench case which takes a contrary view - Raja Singh v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1963 Pat 243 - the main judgment expressing the majority view, that of Misra, J., being based on certain observations made in a Madras case in Rangammal v. Rama Subharavalu Reddiar, AIR 1960 Mad 169. This case of the Patna High Court has been followed by the same High Court in Mt. Sudamawati Kuer v. Ram Chandra Singh. AIR 1963 Pat 320 and has been approved of in preference to the authority of this Court by the Assam High Court in Ram Lakhan Rai Choudhary v. Raghunath Choudhary, AIR 1969 Assam 81. The Cacutta and the Madras High Courts have also taken a view in consonance with the view of this Court disclosed in the majority of cases except the one in 1967 All WR (HC) 448 (vide Ram Narayan Goswami v. Biswanath Goswami, AIR 1959 Cal 366 and Mathu Sathurayar v. Lourduswami Odayar, AIR 1959 Mad 111).

6. The matter having been referred to a Full Bench the whole thing is at large and can well be decided by referring to the relevant provisions of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant provisions are :-

146(IB) "The Civil Court shall, as far as may be practicable,