ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - Sohan Lal and Ram Autar have filed this revision against the judgment and order of the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, whereby he upheld, in revision, the order passed by the learned SDM Robertsganj in favour of Ram Sagar, opposite party No 2, u/s 145(6) Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are these: On 15-10-1963 Ram Sagar, opposite party No. 2 filed an application against the Applicant and Nanhai opposite party No. 3, in the court of the SDM Robertsganj praying that action might be taken on it u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned SDM called for a police report and after satisfying himself that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning the land in dispute existed as alleged by opposite party No. 2, passed a preliminary order, as also an order attaching the subject of dispute and the crop standing thereon. 3. In response to the preliminary order both the parties filed written statements, affidavits and documents in support of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute and Sohan Lal and Ram Autar also raised a preliminary objection that as a Suit instituted by Sohan Lal in respect of the same land u/s 229B of the UPZA and LR Act was pending in the same court (i.e. the court of the SDM Robertsganj), the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were misconceived and were liable to be quashed. The learned SDM overruled the preliminary objection and after considering the affidavits etc. of the parties "passed the order under revision in favour of Ram Sagar, opposite party No. 2 and the same was upheld by the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge Mirzapur. 4. On behalf of the Applicants the preliminary objection, which was unsuccessfully convassed in the courts below, was also pressed before me and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that it is well-founded. As held in Malkappa v. Padamanna AIR 1959 Mys 122 a decision with which I respectfully agree, The provisions of Section 145 should not De invoked when civil litigation about the identical subject-matter is actually pending. As held in Malkappa v. Padamanna AIR 1959 Mys 122 a decision with which I respectfully agree, The provisions of Section 145 should not De invoked when civil litigation about the identical subject-matter is actually pending. When there is a choice between Section 145 and Section 107 before a Magistrate by reason of the pendency of civil litigation he must chose Section 107 and not Section 145. 5. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact, that a civil suit in respect of the same land was filed by Sohan Lal, Applicant, about two months before Ram Sagar filed his application u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and it was pending on the date of the preliminary order. On this fact being brought to his notice, the learned SDM should have, after satisfying himself about its correctness, quashed the preliminary order passed by him. 6. Learned Counsel for Sohan Lal, produced before me a certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in his suit u/s 229B of the UPZA and LR Act on 11-8-1966. This judgment and decree show that his suit was decreed in toto and he, Sohan Lal, was held to be the Sirdar of the land in dispute. The learned Counsel for Ram Sagar was unable to show that the said judgment and decree have been reversed in appeal. Thus for this reason also the order in question is liable to be set aside. I, therefore, set aside that order and allow this revision.