JUDGMENT James, J. - In this Reference by the Sessions Judge of Jaunpur it seems necessary to reiterate the principles applicable to proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, for the learned judge seems to have completely misunderstood their object, and this Court has detected a similar shortcoming on the part of other Sessions Judges also. 2. Proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure are essentially for the purpose of maintaining the public peace, and are definitely not for the purpose of determining title. Whenever a dispute regarding immovable property arises which leads to an apprehension of a breach of peace, the Magistrate in a summary enquiry is required to decide as to which of the contesting parties is in possession or was in possession within two months; after arriving at his decision he has to maintain that party in possession and to prohibit the other party from interfering with it until otherwise decided by a competent Court. In some instances the Magistrate is unable to decide as to which of the parties is in possession; in such cases he keeps the property under attachment until the rights of the contestants have been determined by a competent Court. The proceedings before the Magistrate are invariably of a summary nature and are solely direct at deciding questions of possession; questions of title are sometimes helpful in deciding possession, nevertheless the Magistrate must be careful not to allow title to usurp the place of possession, for the law recognises that it is only the Civil (and in some cases the Revenue) Court which has the authority to give a final decision on Civil rights. 3. What the learned Sessions Judge has done in the instant case would have been more appropriate if he had been sitting on the civil side and deciding a title suit, though I might observe that even then he has not strictly followed the law for he has admitted a number of improperly proved documents filed by the parties. He has laid great stress on the question of title, and to him the more vital question of possession appears to have been a secondary one. He has laid great stress on the question of title, and to him the more vital question of possession appears to have been a secondary one. This is not in accordance with the law applicable to cases u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure As a general rule, the finding of the Magistrate regarding possession should be respected, unless of course there are reasons to believe that he has not applied his mind to the facts of the case or has passed his order arbitrarily or unjudicially. 4. This is by no means the case here. The learned Magistrate, as disclosed from his judgment, has made a real attempt to examine the evidence produce before him, and although he has laid greater stress on oral than on documentary evidence, it cannot be held that his judgment is perverse or that there are substantial and compelling reasons for reversing it. Besides, it is apparent that apart from entries in the patwari's khasra the usual documentary evidence filed in such cases is more evidence of title than of possession. 5. After hearing Learned Counsel at some length I am unable to find any error in the learned Magistrate's order which needs correction on the part of this Court. Consequently I reject this Reference, affirm the order of the learned Magistrate and direct that the opposite party remain in possession of the disputed land until evicted there from in due course of law.