ORDER : This is an application in Revision by Badri Nath Pandey to challenge the order dated 11-10-1962 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur, Varanasi. Whereby the proceeding under S. 145. Cr. P.C. was dropped, the attachment of the property in dispute was withdrawn and the property was to be left as it was found at the time of the attachment, though it was not to be handed over to any particular party.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that apprehending breach of peace the applicant, Badri Nath Pandey, moved the Magistrate for taking proceeding under S. 145 Cr. P.C. with regard to two agricultural plots. The Magistrate was satisfied that there was an imminent danger of the breach peace and, therefore, passed a preliminary order as contemplated by S. 145 Cr. P.C. and also attached the plots. Parties were called

upon to file their written statements and also affidavits. The Magistrate was, however, not in a position to come to a decision as to which party was in possession or could be deemed to be in possession on the date of the preliminary order and, therefore, made a reference to the civil Court for recording a finding on possession. This order of the Magistrate was passed on 6-8-1962. The Reference was heard by the Munsif of Gyanpur, and he was also unable to record a finding as to possession of the rival parties. On receipt of this finding, the Magistrate found himself in difficulty as Ss. 145 and 146 Cr. P.C. made no provision for such a finding of the civil Court. The Magistrate then passed the impugned order withdrawing the attachment and directing the property to be left as before without its being delivered to either of the parties.

3. The learned Advocate for the applicant wants me to look into the propriety of the finding of the civil Court and, in the alternative, the propriety of the earlier order of the Magistrate making a reference to the civil court. The suggestion thus made is that this Court may somehow exercise the revisional jurisdiction to quash one or the other order so that difficulties being faced may be got over.

4. It is true that the Munsif has not acted in accordance with the spirit of the law. A provision for reference to the civil court was made to expedite the disposal of proceeding under S. 145 Cr. P.C. Any order passed by the civil court is final in the sense that no one can challenge that finding in appeal or revision, though he can challenge it in a regular suit to be instituted before a competent court. The civil court has to pass a summary order so that proceeding under S. 145, Cri. P.C. may come to an end without any delay; and after a suitable order has been passed to maintain law and order, the aggrieved party can seek remedy before a competent court.

5. Civil Court is meant to record and invariably does record a finding on the rights and claims of the parties. Where the plaintiff is not able to establish his case, his suit can be dismissed. The same principle could be applied to a summary proceeding. When the civil court has to come to a judicial decision in regular suits, no difficulty should have been felt in recording a summary finding of possession on a reference made to the civil Court under S. 146 Cr. P.C. In the instant case the Munsif adopted an unusual course by recording the finding that none of the rival parties had proved his possession. There were only two persons who were claiming possession of the land and one of them would have taken in possession. If the land belonged to the Gram Samaj, the possession could be deemed to be of the Gram Samaj. However, the finding of the civil court is not one which this Court can in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set aside. Sub-Section (1D) of S. 146 Cr. P.C. makes it clear that no appeal shall lie from any finding a the civil court given on a reference under this Section, nor shall any review or revision of such a finding be allowed. When the legislature made the finding of the civil court final, not subject to