JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Sections 425, 429 and 561-A of the old Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the final ORDER :dated 19th of May, 1974, passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, under Section 145 of the Code as required under Sub-section (1B) of Section 146 of the Code. In the said proceeding the petitioner was the sole member of the first party whereas opposite party no. 1 was the sole member of the second party. 2. In ORDER :to appreciate the point involved in this application, it would be necessary to state briefly the facts. The proceeding between the parties was initiated originally under Section 144 of the Code on 20th of December, 1967 which was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code on 15th of February, 1963. The case was transferred by the Subdivisional Magistrate to the file of Shri R.R.P. Sinha, Honorary Magistrate on 6th of May, 1968. On 14th of March, 1969 the petitioner filed written statement whereas the opposite party had filed his written statement on 9th of April, 1968. The case was heard by Shri R.R.P. Sinha, Honorary Magistrate, on 22nd of May, 1969, but finding difficulties he forwarded the records of the proceeding to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction as required under Section 146(1) of the Code by his ORDER :dated 3rd of June, 1969. The Civil Court after concluding the enquiry as required by Sub-section (1B) of Section 146 of the Code transmitted its finding together with the records of the proceeding. Thereafter the impugned ORDER :was passed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned ORDER :mainly on the ground that the impugned ORDER :ought to have been passed by Shri R.R.P. Sinha, Honorary Magistrate. Thereafter the impugned ORDER :was passed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned ORDER :mainly on the ground that the impugned ORDER :ought to have been passed by Shri R.R.P. Sinha, Honorary Magistrate. He pointed out that the impugned ORDER :was passed by Shri L.P. Choudhary, the then Subdivisional Magistrate which, according to him, is contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-section (1B) of Section 146 of the Code which reads as :- "The Civil Court shall, as far as may be practicable, within a period of three months from the date of the appearance of the parties before it, concluded the inquiry and transmit its finding together with the record of the proceeding to the Magistrate by whom the reference was made and the Magistrate shall, on receipt thereof, proceed to disclose of the proceeding under Section 145 in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court.” He laid emphasis upon the provision made therein that the Civil Court shall send the finding together with the record of the proceeding to the Magistrate by whom the reference was made He submitted that in the instant case is the admitted case of the parties that the reference to the Civil Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code was made by Shri R.R.P. Sinha and not by Shri L.P. Choudhary, the Subdivisional Magistrate. In my opinion, the above provision, which has been quoted above, does not indicate that only the Magistrate who had referred the case under Section 146(1) of the Code is competent to pass ORDER :under Sub-section (1B) of Section 146 of the Code. The provision seems to me mere directory. It is only an irregularity. The petitioner has not been able to point out before me that any prejudice has been caused to him because the impugned ORDER :was passed by Shri L.P. Choudhary, Subdivisional Magistrate, instead of Shri R.R.P. Sinha, Honorary Magistrate. All that the Magistrate had to do on receipt of the findings given by the Civil Court was to pass ORDER :s in conformity with such findings. All that the Magistrate had to do on receipt of the findings given by the Civil Court was to pass ORDER :s in conformity with such findings. Thus, even if the impugned ORDER :is set aside and the case remanded, all that Shri R.R.P. Sinha would have done is that he would have passed similar ORDER :in conformity with the finding of the Civil Court, as Sub section (1B) of Section 146 of the Code gives no option than to pass ORDER :under Section 145 in conformity with the finding of the Civil Court. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by setting aside the impugned ORDER :and remanding the case for fresh ORDER :. The view which I have taken is also supported by a decision in (1) Abdul Noor and another V. Siraj Ali and another (A.I.R. 1963 Tripura 35). 4. In the result, after careful consideration, I do not find any merit in the application which is dismissed and the impugned ORDER :is affirmed. Application dismissed