( 1. ) This criminal revision is by Party No. 2 challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2. ) Two points are urged on behalf of Party No. 2, namely, (i) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was in error in appreciating the evidence on record and coming to unwarranted conclusions; and (ii) that, in any case, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in arriving at a finding contrary to the one recorded by the Civil Court.

( 3. ) After going through the record, I am satisfied that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not commit any error in appreciation of the evidence on record. The claim of Party No. 2 that it was in possession of the property right from 1953 till the preliminary order was passed is shown to be false by the notice published by it in an Urdu paper,The Daily Nadeem dated 29-3-1967. A perusal of that notice clearly shows that Saeed Mohd. Khan was already in possession of the property, though in his capacity as guardian of his sons and daughter (members of Party No. 2), and that he was abusing his position and possession and was disposing of the property so as to defeat the claim of the members of Party No. 2. No evidence has been put forward by Party No 2 to show that on any date after that notice the members of Party No. 2 had entered in physical possession of the property. From the complaints made by the members of Party No. 2 from time to time it would, on the contrary appear that their attempts at taking possession of the property were not successful. In my opinion, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record.

( 4. ) The only question then that arises for my consideration is as to whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to state a few facts. Farrukh Jehan, a member of Party No. 2, is the daughter of Saeed Mohd. Khan. The other members of Party No. 2, viz , Iqbal Mohd., Sikander Mohd. Khan and Iftikhar Mohd. Khan are all the sons of Saeed Mohd. Khan Party No. 1 consists of Saeed Mohd. Khan, the father of the members of Party No. 2, his transferees and a Bataidar, by name, Nandkishore. The transferees as well as the Bataidar claimed to be in possession of the property. Farrukh Jehan of Party No. 2 filed a civil suit against Party No. 1 for perpetual injunction in respect of the disputed land in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Bhopal, on 22-6-1967, on the allegation that the members of Party No. 1 were trying to disturb her possession. Temporary injunction was also prayed for. The Civil Court granted temporary injunction on 21-12-1967 and that order was confirmed by the Additional District Judge on 31-1-1968. Party No. 1 thereupon approached the High Court in revision which was dismissed by the High Court on 7-2-1968. Before the order for temporary injunction was passed, some evidence was recorded and the Civil Court had come to the conclusion that on 22-6-1967, the date of the suit, Farrukh Jehan was in possession of the property in suit and was therefore entitled to temporary injunction. When the matter had gone before the High Court in revision, the High Court had passed the following order :

"Shri R. S. Dabir for the applicants heard. In a suit filed by non-applicant No. 1 Farrukh Jehan against the petitioners and the other non-applicants for a declaration of title to certain lands and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and the other defendants from disturbing her possession of the property a temporary injunction was issued by the Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, who is trying the suit, restraining the petitioners from disturbing the plaintiffs possession of the property. That order of injunction was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in an appeal preferred by the