JUDGMENT 1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bankura. declaring the first party, the Opposite Party before us, to be in possession of certain lands under sec. 145, Cr. P. C. The Magistrate has passed his order on the record-of-rights published in the Settlement proceedings which recorded the possession of this party. But subsequent to the publication of this record-of-rights, it appears that the second party who are the Petitioners before us obtained a decree against the first party in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purulia and in execution of that decree they were put in possession of the disputed land. This Court has repeatedly held that in a proceeding under sec. 145, Cr. P. C., the Magistrate cannot go behind the decision of the Civil Court in the matter. The Magistrate here has erred in thinking that, the decree can be ignored because the Subordinate Judge of Purulia had no jurisdiction over this land and because the delivery of possession was symbolical. It is not for the Magistrate to question the validity of a decree that has not been set aside by a competent Court. Also when the decree is inter partes it is immaterial whether the delivery of possession is symbolical or not. We hold that in this case in disregarding this delivery of possession the Magistrate acted with gross irregularity and in a manner that was likely to cause a failure of justice. We accordingly make this Rule absolute and set aside the order of the Magistrate declaring the first party to be in possession.