ORDER C.D. Parekh, J. - This revision arises out of the order dated 27-1-1470 passed by Shri Ram Sanehi, SDM Rasra. By the impugned order the magistrate held that the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure have become infructuous and superfluous and therefore, he dropped the proceedings and vacated the attachment order. He has further directed Station Officer PS Rasra, to watch the opposite party and report for action u/s 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure if there be any apprehension of breach of peace found from the parties in future. Against this order revision application was preferred before the Sessions Judge who dismissed it summarily. Hence this revision application has been preferred. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an application u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by Ramun for taking action as there was apprehension of breach of peace in respect to the property in dispute. The magistrate after passing the preliminary order called upon the parties to file their respective written statements in respect of their claims and also directed the parties to file affidavits and evidence showing their possession over the property in dispute. The magistrate did not decide the question of possession and he had referred the matter u/s 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure after drawing up statement of facts, to the court of the Munsif, to decide the question whether any or which of the parties was in possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and two months prior to it and he directed the parties to appear before the Munsif on a fixed date. The record, as it appears, was sent to the court of the Munsif by the magistrate on 25th of October, 1968. An application was moved by Parmanand Singh on 30th of July, 1969, that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and the question of title to the attached property was decided by consolidation officer and he was declared as Bhumidhar of the disputed land. On the application of Parmanand Singh, Ramun filed an objection stating that the facts stated in the application are wrong. On the application of Parmanand Singh, Ramun filed an objection stating that the facts stated in the application are wrong. It was stated that the alleged decision by the Consolidation Officer was under appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and it was not a final order and no action could be taken on the basis of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The magistrate by the impugned order upheld the title and possession of Parmanand Singh as decided by the Consolidation Officer. According to the magistrate the purpose of proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has ended as the regular suit regarding the title was decided by the revenue court. He has also held that the pendency of the appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) against the order of the Consolidation Officer would not alter the position as regards the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure because according to the magistrate unless the order of the Consolidation Officer is set aside it is a legal order and Parmanand Singh will remain Bhumidhar of the land so long as the order of the Consolidation Officer remains in force. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants argued that the order is not a proper order under the provisions of Section 146 Code of Criminal Procedure. He invited my attention to the provisions of Section 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of the section runs thus: 146 (1). If the Magistrate is of opinion that none of the parties was then in such possession, or is unable to decide as to which of them was then in such possession, of the subject of dispute, he may attach it and draw up a statement of the facts of the case and forward the record of the proceeding to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute at the date of the order as explained in Sub-section (4) of Section 145: and he shall direct the parties to appear before the Civil Court on a date to be fixed by him: provided that the Distt. Magistrate or the Magistrate who has attached the subject of dispute may withdraw the attachment at any time, if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of a breach of the peace in regard to the subject of dispute. The learned State Counsel stated that the magistrate has a right to summon the record of the case till the proceedings are decided by the civil court. According to him the jurisdiction of the magistrate to decide the matter u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has not been taken away on a reference having been made u/s 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the magistrate did not commit any mistake in law nor the order is improper when he summoned the record from the civil court. 4. The controversy between the parties can well be appreciated that the propriety of the order passed by the magistrate has not been challenged that he could not summon the record from the Civil Court. The propriety of the order has been challenged on the ground that the magistrate had no jurisdiction when once he had referred the matter to the Civil Court to decide the question of possession. The existence of breach of peace or otherwise may be seen and decided but the question of possession in the light of the intervening order passed by the Consolidation Officer could not have been decided. The submission on behalf of the Applicants is that even if the Consolidation Officer decided the question of title and held Parmanand Singh to be in possession of the property that was not a sufficient ground for the magistrate to summon the record from the civil court. It is not disputed that the magistrate could not summon the record. Rather it was disputed that the magistrate could not decide the question of possession at that stage and in the manner and drop the proceedings. 5. The simple question, therefore, is that when once the magistrate was unable to decide as to any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute and drew up a statement of facts and forwarded the record to the civil court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question, can the record be recalled once again to decide the question of possession by the magistrate? In my opinion the magistrate had no such power to recall the record for that purpose. The civil court was competent to take into consideration the order of the Consolidation Officer and its effect when the order itself has not reached the finality. The civil court could decide the matter on the evidence on the record before it. In the circumstances in my opinion the order passed by the magistrate is improper and he could not have summoned the record and passed the impugned order. I do not mean to hold that the magistrate has no power to summon the record. He could do so under the proviso to Section 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose stated there. In the instant case the magistrate did not decide the question of existence or otherwise of apprehension of breach of peace but decided the complicated question of possession only which he could not do. 6. In the circumstances I set aside the order passed by the magistrate and direct the magistrate that he should send back the record to the civil court. The civil court will decide the question of possession as required u/s 146 Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the evidence on record or that may be produced by the parties before it. After recording the finding the Munsif should return the finding to the court of the magistrate and the magistrate thereafter should decide the case according to law. The revision application is decided accordingly. The property will remain attached till the final decision of the magistrate. Stay order dated 11-2-1970 passed by this Court is vacated.