JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - In proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that the appellants were in possession within two months of the date of the preliminary order and he directed that the plots in dispute be released to them. Thereafter the respondents filed a suit appellants. The suit was decreed for recovery of damages against the 2. The respondents thereafter moved an application for restoration of possession in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who had decided the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on the basis of the decree for damages. This application was dismissed on 18th of June, 1960. 3. Later on the village where the holding in dispute is situate was brought under consolidation operations. The appellants filed, an objection claiming to be the sirdars of the plots. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection and his view was affirmed in appeal. In revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the respondents claim was barred by time and the appellants had matured title as sirdars by adverse possession. 4. The respondents challenged the Deputy Director's order by way of a writ petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge held that the respondents were liable to file a suit for possession under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and in view of this special provision it was not necessary for them to file a suit for possession in. the civil courts within three years period of limitation prescribed by Art. 47 of the Limitation Act. Since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded any finding as to whether possession was really delivered to the appellants in pursuance of the order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. or on the question, if possession was in fact delivered, as to the date when it was so delivered, the learned Single Judge after quashing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation sent the revision back to him for deciding it afresh in accordance with the law after recording clear findings on the aforesaid two questions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that in view of Section 29(2) of the Limitation. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that in view of Section 29(2) of the Limitation. Act, the limitation of time given in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for a suit under Section 209 would apply and prevail is eminently justified. Art. 47 of the Limitation Act prescribes for a suit in the civil court, a period of three years from the date of delivery of possession in pursuance of an order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Section 331 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prohibits civil courts for taking cognizance of any suit of the nature prescribed in column 3 of the II Schedule of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. So the suit for possession of the nature prescribed under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not be entertained by any civil court. Consequently the period of limitation prescribed in Art. 47 of the Limitation Act will have no application. Since a suit to which Art. 47 of the Limitation Act would apply is not entertainable, no question of the right to possession becoming time-barred by virtue of Art. 47 read with Section 28 of the Limitation Act arises. 6. At the relevant time the prescribed period of limitation for a suit under Section 209 was six years. Since the relevant findings were not recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the learned Single Judge was justified in sending the case back. 7. The appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed with costs.