ORDER Gangeshwar Prasad, J. - This criminal revision arises out of proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The proceedings started on a police report. Eight persons, viz. Parana Hans, Rama Pati, Shiv Shanker, Nand Kumar, Om Prakash, Adya Prasad, Bhagwan and Ram Daur were arrayed as the first party, while Bhulai was arrayed as the second party. It appears that in the court of the Magistrate notice of the proceedings was served on Param Hans alone out of the persons belonging to the first party. Bhulai, the second party and Param Hans, one of the persons in, the first party, appeared before the Magistrate, filed written statements claiming possession over the property in dispute and filed affidavits in support of their respective claims. The Magistrate did not, however, decide the question of possession and referred the proceedings to the civil court u/s 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. In the civil court Adya Prasad, another person belonging to the first party, also filed a vakalatnama but he does not appear to have taken any part in the proceedings. Ram Pati, Shiva Shanker, Nand Kumar, Om Prakash, Bhagwan and Ram Daur were neither served with notices of the proceedings that were being taken in the civil court nor did they put in appearance. The civil court proceeded to decide the case and held that Bhulai, second party, was in possession of the disputed property. On the basis of the finding recorded by the civil court the Magistrate made an order releasing the property in favour of Bhulai and forbidding the disturbance of his possession by the second (?) (first) party. Rama Pati filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate but it was dismissed. The learned Judge felt that Rama Pati, the Applicant before him, had no notice of the proceedings and the order passed in those proceedings should not, therefore, affect him but he thought that Section 146(1-D) Code of Criminal Procedure prevented interference with the finding recorded by the civil court and the order passed by the Magistrate. Rama Pati, Shiva Shanker, Nand Kumar and Om Prakash have now come in revision to this Court. 3. Rama Pati, Shiva Shanker, Nand Kumar and Om Prakash have now come in revision to this Court. 3. It is obvious that the proceedings before the Magistrate as also the proceedings in the civil court were without jurisdiction so far as Rama Pati, Shiva Shanker, Nand Kumar, Om Prakash, Bhagwan and Ram Daur are concerned. No notice of the proceedings was served upon them and therefore, neither any finding could have been recorded against them by the civil court nor could any order be passed by the Magistrate. Section 146(1-D) Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be interpreted as conferring a finality upon a proceeding which is without jurisdiction and in my opinion, the order passed by the Magistrate has to be quashed. It is true that Param Hans was served with a notice and Adya Prasad had filed a vakalatnama in the Magistrate's court, but the order of the Magistrate has to be set aside as a whole. 4. The result is that the revision, is allowed, all proceedings taken by the Magistrate and all orders passed by him subsequent to the passing of the preliminary order are set aside and the case is sent back to him for taking fresh proceedings according to law.