JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against the final order of the Magistrate disposing of a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court. 2. Mr. Das, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party at the outset urged that this revision against such an order is not maintainable in law. Mr. Patra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other band, contends that this revision is maintainable as the entire proceeding is vitiated because The Magistrate, in his order of reference, illegally entered into a discussion of the affidavits and documents on record and recorded his findings thereon. A Magistrate is competent to attach the property and refer the matter u/s 146, Code of Criminal Procedure when be is of opinion that none of the parties was in possession or is unable to decide as to which of them was in possession, of the subject of dispute. In order to make up his mind in the above direction be, at first, has to properly consider and assess the materials on record. In the statement which the Magistrate is required to draw up, in taking Action u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, he has to indicate The reasons for his reference, which should conform with The above mentioned two grounds on which such a reference can be legally made. Necessarily, therefore, the Magistrate has to enter into some discussion of the materials on record in the above statement, and if he does not do so, his said statement can be caned in question. The above view gets support from the decision reported in Brahma Naik and 2 Ors. v. Ramkumar Agarwala 1968 C.L.T. 181. 3. In the present case the Magistrate in his statement referring the matter to the Civil Court, entered into a lengthy discussion of the affidavits and documents on record, and ultimately referred the matter to the Civil Court by stating therein that he was not able to decide as to which of the two parties was in possession of the disputed lands on the date of the preliminary order or within two months next before the date of that order. In the said discussion no decisive finding has been given on the respective merits of the Cases put forward by the parties, nor has he indicated therein that any of the parties, in his estimation or assessment of the materials on record, was in possession of the disputed lands. The elaborate discussion of the documents and Affidavits, as loan see, was made only for the purpose of indicating that he meticulously and carefully applied his judicial mind to the materials on record. Accordingly no illegality was committed in drawing up the said statement for reference. 4. In the decision reported in Kartik Pan and Anr. v. State 1969 C.L.T. 936, cited by Mr. Patra, it has been held by Ray, J: The illegality of reference and lack of initial jurisdiction of the munsif to proceed with the matter are lawful grounds on which the munsif?s order may be attacked. There is nothing in the said reference which on be said to be illegal, as stated above; and Mr. Patra has not raised the question of lack of initial jurisdiction of the Munsif. Accordingly, the above decision is of no avail for the above contention raised by Mr. Patra. 5. On the above view of the matter and on the specific provisions of Section 146(ID), Code of Criminal Procedure and on the consistent view of this Court as expressed in Bijoy Gobind Das and 15 Ors. v. Sirish Chandra Das & 3 Ors. 966 C.L.T. 166, and Dibakar Swain v. Skiba Swain and 4 Ors. 1971 (1) C.W.R. 27. I find that this revision is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.