ORDER :- This revision arises out of proceedings under S. 145, Criminal P.C.

2. The facts are that on 15-6-1958 the Station Officer, Kotwali, made a report on which the magistrate, on 27-6-1958 drew up a preliminary order-under S. 145, Criminal P.C. There being an immediate apprehension of breach of peace the property in dispute was attached and the parties were called to file their written statements and adduce evidence. The parties did so. The learned magistrate felt unable to decide as to which party was in possession. He made a reference under S. 146(1) Criminal P.C. to the court of the City Munsif, Azamgarh. An application under S. 24, Civil P.C. was made to the-District Judge, Azamgarh, for the transfer of these proceedings to some other competent court. This application was after notice and a hearing, allowed and the proceedings were transferred to the court of the Munsif, Mohammadabad, Azamgarh, The learned Munsif, Mohammadabad, heard the parties and on 26-7-1961 recorded a finding that the first party was-and the second and the third parties were not, in possession of the involved property, on the date of the preliminary order.

3. The matter came back before the referring magistrate who, in conformity with the adjudication of the civil court, released the property in favour of the first party and restrained the second and the third parties from interfering with the possession of the first party. Aggrieved, the second and the third parties went up in revision.

4. In revision for the first time the competence of the court of the Munsif, Mohammadabad, Azamgarh to hear and decide the reference was raised. It was urged that S. 24, Civil P.C. was inapplicable and the District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the case. This contention was repelled on the ground that the point was not raised

before the magistrate or in the memorandum of revision and that no prejudice appears to have occasioned to the

applicants. The other points raised also failed. The revision was in the result, dismissed. The second and third parties have come to this court in revision. They urge that the civil court deciding a reference made by a magistrate under S. 146(1), Criminal P.C. docs not act as regular civil court, and that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or S. 24 thereof are not applicable to it; as such the finding of the transferee Munsif was incompetent and the magistrate could not decide the case in conformity with it.

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has reiterated that the objection as to competence not having been taken before the court of the Munsif, Mohammadabad, when it proceeded to adjudicate the reference, or before the magistrate it cannot be raised in revision. The existence of jurisdiction is very different from the exercise of it. The question whether there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject-matter relates to the existence of jurisdiction; the decision of all other questions in the cause or matter pertains to the exercise of jurisdiction, Govindprasad v. Pawankumar, AIR 1952 Nag 278. The requirements of the law for the assumption of jurisdiction if not complied with make the entire adjudication null and void. There is ample authority for the proposition that when there is lack of competence to entertain a cause or proceeding the consent of the parties or the omission to raise an objection at the threshold will not convert it into a proper judicial process. Where

jurisdiction does not exist, no amount of consent, acquiesence or waiver can create it or confer it, Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan. AIR 1954 SC 340; United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230 (237) and Ledgard v. Bull, ILR 9 All 191 (203) (PC).

6. This is all the more so in respect of inferior courts as distinguished from the superior courts of Record. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Vol. 9 p. 349, it is stated.

"Prima facie no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of Superior Court unless it