Ramachandra Raju, J.-The Criminal Revision Case came up for hearing in the first instance before a single Judge, our learned brother Gangadhara Rao, J. On the ground that there is conflict of decisions between the various High Courts on the questions raised in the case and that there is no decision of this Court in that regard, the questions involved are likely to arise in a number of cases, the learned Judge considered it desirable that the case should be decided by a Division Bench. That is how this case came up before us for hearing. 2. The matter has arisen out of a final order passed by an Executive Magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old). (Hereinafter if sections 145 and 146 are referred to, they relate only to the old Code of Criminal Procedure.) The procedure adopted under sections 145 or 146 of the present Code of Criminal Procedure is somewhat different. 3. A few facts of the case which are necessary to understand the questions involved for decision may be stated. On a report given by the Police, the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad passed a preliminary order under section 145(1) on 1st February, 1973. After written statements were filed, when the Magistrate found it difficult to decide as to which of the contending parties was in possession of the land in dispute on the date of the preliminary order, as provided under section 146, he referred the case for decision of a civil Court to decide the question whether any and which of the contending parties was in possession of the subject-matter of dispute on the date of the preliminary order. 4. Thereafter the Munsif-Magistrate, Hyderabad West, which is the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and to whom the case was referred, considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and submitted his findings to the effect that the first party, the petitioners in this revision case, was in possession of the land in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and also within two months prior to that order and therefore they are entitled to be in possession until evicted in due course of law. 5. 5. The Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad passed a final order under section 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil Court, Aggrieved by that order, the second party, the respondents in this revision case, filed a criminal revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who by coming to the conclusion that the merits of the decision of the civil Court submitted by it under section 146 to the Magistrate can be gone into and that the civil Court failed to consider certain documents and also failed to appreciate the effect of some other documents, found on merits that the petitioners before him (Respondents herein) have been in possession of the disputed property during the relevant time and their possession therefore must be protected by the Court. Aggrieved by this the first party has come before this Court in this Criminal Revision Case. 6. Sri Padmanabha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, first party, had made two submissions, viz., (1) No revision lies against a final order passed by a Magistrate under section 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil Court; and (2) Even otherwise the revisional Court can exercise the power to the limited extent of ascertaining whether the Magistrate has implemented the decision of the civil Court and it cannot go into the question of the correctness of the decision of the civil Court. 7. We do not find any substance in the first contention of the learned Counsel. As a matter of fact, he did not seriously press it. 8. On the question relating to the second contention there appears to be some conflict in the cases decided by the High Courts. 9. It is convenient to extract here section 146 so far it is necessary for our purpose. As a matter of fact, he did not seriously press it. 8. On the question relating to the second contention there appears to be some conflict in the cases decided by the High Courts. 9. It is convenient to extract here section 146 so far it is necessary for our purpose. "(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 proceedings 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.......... (1-A) On receipt of any such reference, the civil Court shall peruse the evidence on record and take such further evidence as may be produced by the parties respectively, consider the effect of all such evidence, and after hearing the parties, decide the question of possession so referred to it; (1-B) 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,conelude 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 dispose of the proceeding under section 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil Court (the stress is ours); (1-C).................... (1-D) No appeal shall lie from any finding of the civil Court given on a reference under this section nor shall any review or revision of any such finding be allowed; (1-E) An order under this section shall be subject to any subsequent decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction. (2) ..................... 10. (1-D) No appeal shall lie from any finding of the civil Court given on a reference under this section nor shall any review or revision of any such finding be allowed; (1-E) An order under this section shall be subject to any subsequent decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction. (2) ..................... 10. From a reading of the above provisions, it is immediately clear that a Magistrate in seisin of a case under section 145 unable to decide as to which of the contending parties was in possession of the disputed property on the relevant date, he may attach the property and draw up a statement of the facts of the case and forward the proceeding to a civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question about possession and the civil Court to which reference is made, on receipt of the record after perusing it and taking such further evidence as may be produced by the parties respectively and after hearing the parties, decide the question of possession as referred to it. The decision of the civil Court is final as no appeal, review or revision shall lie against it. Apart from the decision of the civil Court being final as no appeal, review or revision shall lie against it on the civil side the Magistrate on receipt of the finding of the civil Court shall dispose of the proceeding under section 145 only to be in conformity with the decision of the civil Court. That means the Magistrate has no other option but to accept the finding given by the civil Court without going into the merits of it for the purpose of passing the final order by him. 11. If that is the position and effect of the provisions contained in section 146, the question arises whether any revision lies as provided under sections 435 and 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure and if so to what extent, against a final order passed by a Magistrate under section 145 after receiving the finding from the civil Court after reference to it. 12. The final order passed under section 145 is by a criminal Court in a criminal proceeding. 12. The final order passed under section 145 is by a criminal Court in a criminal proceeding. If so ordinarily sections 435 and 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted and a superior Court has power as provided under those provisions to call for records and examine the same for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the Magistrate. Therefore in. the absence of anything which prohibits it,it is not possible to say that no revision at all lies against the final order of the Magistrate on receipt of the finding of the civil Court because it is an order passed by a criminal Court and in a criminal proceeding. The power of revision contemplated under section 435 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure is not in any way affected by sub-section (1-D) of section 146. There the provision prohibiting filing of an appeal, review or revision is only with regard to the finding of the civil Court given on a reference made to it. As already discussed above, it is provided under sub-section (1-D) of section 146 that the finding of the civil Court on a reference made to it by a Magistrate is final and not subject to any appeal, revision or review. It only means the correctness of the finding of the civil Court is not capable of being canvassed on merits by taking the matter to a higher Court in the civil side. That provision does not in any way affect the revisional jurisdiction of the superior Courts against the final order of the Magistrate passed under section 145 on receipt of the finding of the civil Court. There is nothing in section 146 to support the contention that no revision at all lies against the final order of the Magistrate passed by him after receipt: of the finding of the civil Court. It may be a different matter to what extent a revision lies and what can be interfered with by the revisional Court with the final order in such a revision. It may be a different matter to what extent a revision lies and what can be interfered with by the revisional Court with the final order in such a revision. If the final order passed by the Magistrate is not in accordance with the finding given by the civil Court, certainly it would be an illegal order because as provided under sub-section (1-B) of section 146, the Magistrate shall on receipt of the finding, proceed to dispose of the proceeding under section 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil Court. The Magistrate has no other option but to dispose of the proceeding by passing a final order only to be in conformity with the decision of the civil Court. Therefore, if he does not dispose of the proceeding in that manner, certainly the revisional Court can set aside the order of the Magistrate as incorrect or illegal, not having been in conformity with the decision of the civil Court as it would be contrary to the provision contained in sub-section (1-B) of section 146. Therefore in such a case the revisional Court can interfere with the final order and set it aside. But if the order passed by the Magistrate is in conformity with the decision of the civil Court which it should be as provided under sub-section (1 -B) of section 146 and is not otherwise illegal, it cannot be set aside by the revision Court as the power of interference given to a revisional Court as provided under section 435 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure is only if the order under revision is incorrect, illegal or improper. When the Magistrate passes the final order in accordance with the decision of the civil Court, it cannot be said that the order of the Magistrate is either incorrect, illegal or improper. In this view of the matter in the present case when the Magistrate passed the final order in accordance with the decision of the civil Court to which the reference was made by him, as provided under sub-section (1) of section 146, it is not liable to be set aside by the sessions Judge by going into the merits of the finding of the civil Court and coming to the conclusion that that finding is wrong on merits. The revisional Court in a revision filed against the final order of the Magistrate cannot go into the question of correctness of the finding of the civil Court on which the order of the Magistrate is based. The revisional Court is not competent to do it, its competency being only to find out the correctness, legality or propriety of the order of the Magistrate. If the order of the Magistrate is in accordance with the decision of the civil Court it cannot be said that it is either incorrect, illegal or improper, though the decision of the civil Court may not be correct on merits. 13. As already noticed above, an order passed under section 146 is subject to any subsequent decision of any Court of competent jurisdiction. That means the remedy of the party aggrieved by the finding of the civil Court in the reference made to it under sub-section (1) of section 146 and consequently by the final order passed by the Magistrate under section 145 in accordance with the decision of the civil Court is to file a suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction and obtain a decision with regard to his right to be in possession of the property and not to question the correctness of the decision of the civil Court made in the reference in the Criminal proceeding itself. 14. His Lordship Somasundaram, J. in M. Sethurayar v. L. Odayar1, said that a revision lies under sections 435 and 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the Magistrate, who disposed of the petition under section 145 after the receipt of the finding of the civil Court after reference under section 146 (1) atleast to show that the order of the lower Court is not in conformity with the decision of the civil Court and it cannot be said that no revision at all lies against the order of the Magistrate. His Lordship further said that the High Court in revision has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or legality or otherwise of the finding of the civil Court in a reference made to it by the Magistrate. In Rangammal v. Subharayalu2, the Magistrate on receipt of the finding of the civil Court after reference made to it under section 146(1), has disposed of the matter under section 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil Court. In Rangammal v. Subharayalu2, the Magistrate on receipt of the finding of the civil Court after reference made to it under section 146(1), has disposed of the matter under section 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil Court. Two cases were filed before the High Court-one a criminal revision case under section 435 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure against the final order of the Magistrate made under section 145 and the other a civil revision petition against the finding of the civil Court submitted to the Magistrate. Having regard to the provisions contained in section 146 (1-D), Ramaswami, J., who heard the cases, held, that the civil revision petition does not lie against the finding of the civil Court, Accordingly he dismissed the civil revision petition. He has also dismissed the criminal revision case, not on the ground that the order of the Magistrate which is in accordance with the finding of the civil Court cannot be interfered with in revision, but on the ground that the finding of the civil Court is in accordance with the evidence in the case. Though the learned Judge referred to the decision of Somasundaram, J., mentioned above, he did not consider it on this aspect of the matter though the learned Judge referred to is said that the civil revision petition does not lie having regard to section 146 (1-D). In Raja Singh v. Mahendra Singh3, a Full Bench of the Patna High. Court, by a majority of two to one, came to the conclusion that the High Court can interfere with the finding of the civil Court under sections 435 and 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure in a revision against the final order passed by the Magistrate after adopting the finding of the civil Court. The learned Judges observed that when a revision is preferred against the order of the Magistrate, not only the operative order of the Magistrate but the entire proceeding including the findings of the civil Court are before 1 he Court and therefore, the High Court can, in appropriate cases, interfere with the findings of the civil Court. But the third Judge was unable to subscribe to this view. But the third Judge was unable to subscribe to this view. With great respect we cannot agree with the view taken by the majority Juages in the Full Bench case of the Patna High Court to say that in a revision filed against the final order of the Magistrate under section 145 after reference to the civil Court and on receipt of its finding, if it is in accordance with the finding of the civil Court, the High Court can interfere with the finding of the civil Court. In the decision of Chandi Kumar v. Probhat Kumar4, the Calcutta High Court held that in view of sub-section (1-D) of section 146, the High Court cannot interfere with the order of the Magistrate made under section 146 on the ground that the finding of the civil Court is incorrect. A Full Bench of Allahabad High Court also considered the matter in Parzand Ali v. Shaukat Ali1. After referring to several decisions including the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court came to the conclusion that the finding of the civil Court cannot be challenged in a Criminal Revision filed against the order of the Magistrate after he has disposed of the proceeding before him under section 145 in conformity with the finding of the Civil court. A similar view was taken by a Full Bench of Assam and Nagaland High Court in Nishi Mohan v. Sonaram2. 15. Therefore the view we have taken is in comity with the view taken by most of the High Courts when we said that the revisional Court, in a revision filed against the final order passed by a Magistrate under section 146 (1-B) in accordance with the decision of the civil Court, is not competent to go into the merits of the finding of the civil Court and set aside the order of the Magistrate on the ground that the finding of the civil Court is bad. 16. The learned Sessions Judge went wrong in going into the merits of the finding of the civil Court and in allowing the revision petition by coming to a different conclusion on merit. 17. Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and that of the Magistrate restored.