B. DAYAL, J. : This case has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court for the decision of the question

"Whether the Provisions of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to proceedings before a 'Civil court of competent jurisdiction' deciding a reference under Section 146 Cr. P.C."

The question arose in this way. There was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. before a criminal court. The criminal court was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession and made a reference under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. to the Civil Court. After the Civil Court had decided the matter, two persons made an application to that court saying that they had not obtained information about the date when the civil court would proceed finally to decide the matter. They stated that the proceedings before the Civil Court had been stayed by an order of the learned Sessions Judge but they did not know when the civil court restarted the proceedings after receipt of the record from the court of Session, and they, therefore, prayed that the decision made by the civil court be set aside as an ex parte decision and they may be heard.

The learned Munsif, before whom the application was made, did not go into the merits of the application but merely stated that the provisions of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code did not apply to a reference under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on that basis dismissed the application summarily. The applicant filed a revision in this court which was heard by a learned single judge, and before him some cases were cited showing a conflict of views between this High Court and the Madras High Court. Consequently the question mentioned above was referred to this Division Bench.

2. Before proceeding with the discussion of the question referred to us it may be noted that the case of Sri Sheonath Prasad v. City Magistrate Varanasi, AIR 1959 All 467 which was relied upon by the opposite parties was a case in which the question arose whether the civil court to which a reference Had been made by the criminal court was a"court of competent jurisdiction" to decide the matter. The argument was that the property involved was valued at more than Rs. 5,000/- and, therefore, the Munsif to whom the reference had been made was incompetent to decide it. A learned Judge of this court, who heard that case, came to the conclusion that a reference under Section 146 Cr. P.C. pending in a civil court retains its character as a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and the competence of the court is not to be decided by taking into consideration the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, as in Civil suits, but it has to be decided only with reference to the territorial jurisdiction of the court, as the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates only territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts. The precise question which has arisen in this case did not really arise there, and, therefore, we need not go into further consideration. of that case.

3. The applicant had relied upon two cases of the Madras High Court - Kochadai Naidu v. Nagavasami Naidu, AIR 1961 Mad 247 and Kondammal v. Duraiswami Naicker, AIR 1961 Mad 384. In the first case the point for consideration was whether a proceeding referred to a civil court could be transferred under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to another court of competent jurisdiction, and the learned Judge who decided that case came to the conclusion that a 'proceeding' mentioned in Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is wide enough to include a proceeding consequent upon a reference under Section 146, Cr. P.C. and, therefore, it could be transferred to any other competent court. In the second case the question was exactly the same as Das arisen in the present revision, and the learned Judge who decided the case carne to the conclusion that the provisions of order 9, rule 13, of the Civil procedure Code apply to a proceeding upon a reference under S