Judgment Banerji, J. 1. This case has been referred to the Division Bench. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows. The petitioners were members of the second party in a proceeding under Sec.144, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Sub-Divisional Officer at Patna. On 21-12-1953, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order which reads as follows : "Heard lawyer for both the parties. Both the parties have got documents in support of their claim of possession. It is desirable that the question of possession of land be settled once for all. Draw proceeding under Sec.145, Cr. P. C., in respect of the lands in dispute and serve copies of the proceeding on the parties. The disputed lands together with standing crop, if any, are attached under Sec.145, Cr. P. C. Put up on 12-1-54." 2. Two days later, on 23-12-1953, the first party, who are opposite party here, filed an application praying that plots Nos. 3616 to 3620 be excluded from the proceeding, as, regarding these five plots, there was an order in their favour in a former proceeding under Sec.145, Cr. P. C., and also a favourable decision of the Civil Court. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties, said : om the documents submitted on behalf of the parties it is not clear if these plots or parts thereof were subject-matter of the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. p. C. In view of this, I see no reason to exclude them from the proceeding. Prayer is rejected." The first party then moved the District Magistrate of Patna, and it appears that their prayer was to set aside both the orders passed on 21-12-1953, as well as on 23-12-1953. The learned District Magistrate, on 27-4-1954, allowed this application, and directed that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 21-12-1953, converting the proceeding under Sec.145, Cr. P. C., be set aside. 3. The second party, being dissatisfied with this order, has now come up to this Court for reversal of the same. 4. Prom the order dated 21-12-1953, it appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dropped the proceeding under Sec.144, Cr. P. C., and started a fresh proceeding under Sec.145, Cr. P. C. It has been argued on behalf of the opposite party that the learned District Magistrate could pass a final order, as he has done, under Sec.144, Sub-section (4), Cr. 4. Prom the order dated 21-12-1953, it appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dropped the proceeding under Sec.144, Cr. P. C., and started a fresh proceeding under Sec.145, Cr. P. C. It has been argued on behalf of the opposite party that the learned District Magistrate could pass a final order, as he has done, under Sec.144, Sub-section (4), Cr. P. C. That sub-section is in the following terms : "Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by his predecessor in office." In the present case, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not passed any order either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Sec.144 lasking the parties to do anything or to abstain from doing anything. He has merely dropped the proceeding and started an altogether different proceeding with respect to the lands in dispute. No one has been affected by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and, in that circumstance, a revisional application under subsection (4) could not be competent. It follows, therefore, that, there being no revisable or appealable order passed by a Magistrate subordinate to the District Magistrate, the latter was not clothed with jurisdiction to set aside the same. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the opposits party that, in any case, the learned District Magistrate could have referred the matter to this Court exercising his jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 438, Cr. P. C. So far as the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dropping the proceeding under Sec.144, Cr. P. C., is concerned, I do not think that the learned District Magistrate could recommend to this Court for setting aside that order which is dated 21-12-1953. It appears, however, that he did not dispose of the other prayer of the first party who had prayed that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 23-12-1953, be also set aside. It was a mistake on the part of the first party to combine both the prayers in one petition and to approach the District Magistrate against two distinct and separate orders by one and the same application. It was a mistake on the part of the first party to combine both the prayers in one petition and to approach the District Magistrate against two distinct and separate orders by one and the same application. It is the look-out of the first party if they are going to move the District Magistrate with a view to recommending their case to this Court on the question of propriety of a proceeding under Sec.145 in face of a prior order and a Civil Court decision. So far as the present application is concerned, it cannot but succeed. Accordingly, the order of the learned District Magistrate reversing the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 21-12-1953, is set aside, and the rule made absolute. Kanhaiya Singh, J. 6 I agree.