ORDER : S. KRISHNA PILLAI, J. 1. These proceedings arise out of the dispute between a vendor and a vendee of immovable properties. The vendee is the revision petitioner against whom proceedings have been taken by the subordinate Magistrate under S. 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The point on which there is and can be any dispute relates to the identity and possession of the land comprised in the deed. This being a dispute relating to land should naturally form the subject of an enquiry by the Magistrate under S. 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That being the case the only matter for consideration is whether there are circumstances which justify proceedings under S. 103. 2. The simple facts of the case have been complicated by certain proceedings of this court and the subordinate court. The vendor brought a suit in the Pathanamthitta Munsiff’s Court (O.S. No. 498 of 1120) for a declaration that the disputed land was not comprised in the sale deed and for a perpetual injunction restraining the vendee from entering on such land. The court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the vendee from entering on such land. The Magistrate who was moved in the matter by the vendee initiated proceedings under S. 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, attached the property and appointed a receiver. This was done in spite of the issue of the order of injunction restraining the vendee from entering on the land. Meantime the order of injunction issued by the first court was cancelled by the District Court on appeal. In revision by the vendor (Civil Revision Petition No. 631 of 1121) this Court cancelled the lower appellate court’s order and restored the injunction order issued by the trial court. This Court also directed suspension of the proceedings taken by the Magistrate under S. 143 which it thought was passed either in ignorance of the Civil Court’s order of injunction or in defiance of it. It cannot be deemed that, if there was a proper order of injunction issued by the civil court restraining the defendant from entering on the land, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S. 143 as his duty was to enforce the Civil Court’s order and not to act in derogation of it. It cannot be deemed that, if there was a proper order of injunction issued by the civil court restraining the defendant from entering on the land, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S. 143 as his duty was to enforce the Civil Court’s order and not to act in derogation of it. I therefore feel no doubt that, if the order of injunction against the defendant were proper, the proceedings under S. 143 of the code of Criminal Procedure were improper. It is equally clear that, if the order of injunction were to stand and the vendee in spite of it tries to molest the vendor and threatens to do acts which involve breaches of the peace, the appropriate action will be under S. 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. It is, however, contended by the revision petitioner learned Counsel that the order of injunction has become ineffective by reason of certain other proceedings and that proceedings under S. 103 are no longer justified. It would appear that in the civil suit there was a contention that the plaintiff had deliberately undervalued the suit so as to make it cognisable by the local Munsiff’s Court and that if the suit was properly valued the plaint would have to be returned to the party for presentation to the District Court. In that case he contended that the order of injunction issued by the Munsiff’s Court was incompetent. In the revision proceedings, referred to above, this Court held that proper court fee had been paid and that on the merits a temporary injunction had to issue. If the court fee paid on the plaint was sufficient the suit was cognizable in the Munsiff’s Court, but if court fee had to be paid on the subject matter of the value of the suit was cognizable only by the District Court. This point was considered in revision, where it was held that proper court fee had been paid and the suit competent in the Munsiff’s Court. The question of court fee formed the subject of a separate revision before this Court in another proceeding before a Division Bench (C.R.P. No. 301 of 1123). This point was considered in revision, where it was held that proper court fee had been paid and the suit competent in the Munsiff’s Court. The question of court fee formed the subject of a separate revision before this Court in another proceeding before a Division Bench (C.R.P. No. 301 of 1123). It was held there that the court fee payable was on the market value of the properties, that the jurisdiction in such case was that of the District Judge to entertain the suit and that the plaint was to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. Accordingly the plaint was returned and filed in the Mavelikara District Court within whose jurisdiction the properties are situate. The plaintiff is reported to have filed another petition and move that court that, if the first order of injunction has become invalid by reason of the want of jurisdiction of the court issuing it, a fresh order of injunction might issue. That matter is still pending. In these circumstances the question arises whether, by reason of the last decision on the question of jurisdiction, the order of injunction issued by the Munsiff’s Court and confirmed in revision by the High Court should be held to be inoperative. 4. Ordinarily orders passed by a court which has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit are considered to be nullities, but where the question of jurisdiction was raised before the court issuing the order and the decision was in support of jurisdiction, the better view seems to be that such orders should be treated as valid until set aside in appropriate proceedings. In this case the Munsiff held that he had jurisdiction and issued the order of injunction. In revision this Court also held that the suit lay in the Munsiff’s Court and that it had jurisdiction to issue the order. In Nageswara v. Ganesa A.I.R. 1942 Madras 675, it was held that an order passed by a court on the strength of its decision that it has jurisdiction, even though erroneous, would not be a nullity. In revision this Court also held that the suit lay in the Munsiff’s Court and that it had jurisdiction to issue the order. In Nageswara v. Ganesa A.I.R. 1942 Madras 675, it was held that an order passed by a court on the strength of its decision that it has jurisdiction, even though erroneous, would not be a nullity. The question of court fee has now been decided by a Division Bench of this Court and the case has been taken off the file of the Munsiff’s Court to that of the District Court, but the contention cannot be accepted as valid that the injunction order issued by the Munsiff would thereupon cease to have any force. That, in my view, can happen only when the District Court before which the question is pending decides so. If it sees no reason that the injunction should continue it can hold so upon facts. If, however, it finds that the injunction will stand, it is within its competence also to say so. In the latter case the order will continue and in the former case the order will discontinue. In any case it seems to me that, until the court, before which the suit is now pending, passes appropriate orders on the matter now pending before it, the order of injunction issued by the Munsiff and confirmed in revision by the High Court must stand. The Magistrate in deciding whether, in any particular case, he should take proceedings under S. 103 or S. 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is entitled to be guided by considerations set forth above and his discretion cannot in this particular case be said to be unjustified. 5. Criminal Revision Petition No. 240 of 1124 is dismissed but I would direct the District Court to dispose of the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 41 of 1124 on its file. Criminal Revision Petition No. 346 of 1124 has also to be dismissed as the order of transfer is not for resuming proceeding, but only for keeping custody of the records so that it may, as the proper court having territorial jurisdiction at present, take up the case for enquiry if the case is revived as a result of any order passed by the High Court. That has not happened so far, and the apprehensions of the revision petitioner being unfounded the revision petition filed by him, Criminal Revision Petition No. 240 of 1124, is dismissed.