Judgment R.N.Lal, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of Shri B.K.P. Sinha, Executive Magistrate, Nawada, in Misc. Case No. 670 Cm/74/84/85 under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") dated 17-8-85 by which the possession of 2nd party-opposite party was declared and the 1st party-petitioner was restrained from going over the land and disturb the opposite partys possession. 2. Earlier there was a proceeding under sec. 144 of the Code started on 10-9-74 with regard to 1 dhur out 1 katha 2 dhurs land of plot No. 702 under katha No. 80 village Naudihakala, district Nawada towards northwest-corner of the said plot. The said proceeding was later on converted into a proceeding under sec. 145 of the Code and the arguments were heard on 6.4.84 the impugned order was passed on 17-8-85. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceeding under sec. 144 of the Code had been started for an area of 1 dhur only of plot No. 702 which had a total area of 32 dhurs, but the possession had been declared over the entire plot which is not according to law. The proceeding was started under sec. 144 of the Code which shows that only one dhur was in dispute between the parties and that proceeding had been converted into one under sec. 145 of the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner clearly shows that the dispute was with regard to one dhur of land only of plot No. 702 in the northwest direction. So according to him the Magistrate wrongly declared the possession over the entire plot. He further submitted that according to the case of the 1st party also in the court below it was admitted that 4 dhurs belonged to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate heard arguments on 6-4-84 and passed orders after about 161 months. Thus, the impugned order is not according to law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that though the order was passed after 16 months of the hearing of the argument it cannot be said to be illegal on that account alone. According to him the entire plot was in dispute which the 1st party had claimed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that though the order was passed after 16 months of the hearing of the argument it cannot be said to be illegal on that account alone. According to him the entire plot was in dispute which the 1st party had claimed. The learned Magistrate had discussed the evidence which were adduced before him and after considering those evidences, he had passed the impugned order. Thus, there is nothing wrong or illegal therein. 5. Looking into the records it is clear that the proceeding lingered on since 1974 and about 14 years have passed away since then. The impugned order itself shows that the argument was heard on 6-4-84 but the order was passed on 17-8-85 after about 16 months. That may be one of the reasons due to which the Magistrate hearing the arguments forgot that the proceeding was with regard to 1 dhur only and not with regard to the entire plot bearing No. 702. This itself shows that the impugned order is wrong to that extent. I have already said that this is possible because the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order after 16 months and the memory is likely to get distorted, after such a long period. The learned Magistrate did not discuss about the possession of that specific one dhur of land situated on northwestern portion of plot No. 702. He simply declared possession of the 2nd party-opposite party till the time is interfered with by any order of a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 6. The proceeding under sec. 144 of the Code or a proceeding under sec. 145 of the Code are purely temporary measures for avoiding breach of the peace and if the order is passed after a decade or so the whole purpose of proceeding gets defeated. Any finding in the proceeding under sec. 145 of the Code cannot replace the finding of a civil court. The parties also in this case did not try to approach the civil court to get the declaration regarding the title or possession over the suit land. In my view the impugned order is not according to law and hence the same is set aside. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The parties should get this matter decided in the court of civil jurisdiction which is a better forum for getting such disputes settled finally.