Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The defendant/petitioners claim to be grand sons of one Chandra Kali whereas the respondent/plaintiffs claim to be purchasers of the suit property by virtue of sale-deed from Chandra Kali.

2. Earlier a Case No. 19 of 1997 (Shiv Nazar Singh v. Chandra Kali and others) under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. was instituted and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur passed an order on 26.4.1999 under Section 146 Cr.P.C. attaching the property in dispute pending decision under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and handed over the property to the Supurdgar/receiver, petitioner No. 1 and the case is still pending. The respondents are not party to the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C.

3. The respondents filed suit No. 85 of 2003 (Suresh Singh and another v. Shiv Sevak Singh and others) permanent prohibitory injunction and also prayed for temporary injunction. An ex parte injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khaga, Fatehpur on 24.5.2003, petitioners filed objections and the trial Court rejected the objection and affirmed the temporary injunction by order dated 8.3.2011. The petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2011 (Sudhir Singh and others v. Suresh Singh and others) which was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The orders dated 4.7.2014 and 8.3.2011 passed by the Courts below are under challenge in the writ petition.

4. The submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once the suit property was attached under Section 146 Cr.P.C. then in a subsequent suit the Civil Court could not grant any temporary injunction and ignore the order passed by the Magistrate attaching the suit property and it is further contended that the alleged admission of the petitioners regarding possession of the respondents in paragraph 13 of the written statement is not an admission of possession but the assertion explains that plaintiff/respondents have illegally taken possession of the suit property in May, 2003.

5. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his submission relied upon the following cases: Durga Prasad v. Mata Sharan and another, 1993 All CJ 513, Fateh Mohammad v. State of U.P. and others, 1982 (8) ALR 125, Dwarika Prasad v. XIth A.D.J. Kanpur Nagar and others, 2005(1) AWC 831.

6. In rebuttal Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that the petitioners have no concern with Chandra Kali widow of Ram Swaroop Singh. The name of Chandra Kali is recorded in the revenue records since 1958 and even during the consolidation proceedings, which ended in 1962-65, no objections was raised by the petitioners regarding her title or ownership and now being barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

7. Chandra Kali, the absolute owner of the suit property vide sale-deed dated 4.3.1997 transferred the property in favour of the respondents and possession was handed over to the respondents and their names have since been mutated in the revenue record on 11.8.2003.

8. The respondents are not parties to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which in any case, is summary proceedings initiated apprehending breach of peace, the question of title and possession cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C., Civil Court is the competent Court to determine the question of possession in respect of the suit property, irrespective of the fact that the proceedings are pending under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have admitted in their written statement that the respondents are in possession of the suit property.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following cases in support of his argument:

M.P. Peter v. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 5 LAWS (SC) 220, Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, (2004) 1 SCC 438, Dharampal and others v. Ramshri (Smt.) and others, (1993) 1 SCC 435, Harish and others v. State and others, 1984 (21) ACC 22, Mata Bhikh v. State, 1979 Law Suit (All) 173, Shakuntala Devi v