S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated] 6. 8. 1985, passed by Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 57 of 1985. This revision was accompanied by an application for stay also. On receiving the notice of the revision and the application for stay, Shri R. C. Khare, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of N. As. 1 and 2. Both the counsels in view of the short question involved agreed to argue the case on merits on the basis of the material on record. Copies of the relevant orders had also been filed. Accordingly, the counsels were heard. ( 2 ) OWING to a dispute with regard to the possession of a shop, proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) were initiated, by the police imp leading both the parties as N. As, before the S. D. M. Durg. As the order dated 1. 7. 1985 indicates, the shop in dispute had been ordered to be put under lock and key of the police on 10. 11. 1984. However, that order was set aside in Criminal Revision No. 1/85, vide order dated 17. 1. 1985 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, which had been filed by the present applicants. As the aforesaid order dated 17. 1. 1985 indicates, the order of the S D M. was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for the reason that the preliminary order had not been passed till then. He also held that without passing the preliminary order, the sub-divisional Magistrate could not have issued summonses to the parties. He accordingly allowed the revision and set aside the orders dated 10. 11. 1984 and 13. 11. 1984 as had been passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. He had, however made certain observations so as to enable the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law. ( 3 ) IT may here be mentioned that Moolchand Sharma and Ishwardas who are the non-applicants in the present revision had filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction against Om Prakash and Tannulal Assrani alias Shrichand, who are the petitioners in the present revision. In that Civil Suit an application for grant of temporary injection had also been filed by the plaintiffs. From the order dated 13. 12. In that Civil Suit an application for grant of temporary injection had also been filed by the plaintiffs. From the order dated 13. 12. 1984 passed by the trial Court it is apparent that plain application for grant of temporary injunction against the defendants was rejected and the defendants application for grant of injunction against the plaintiffs was allowed. Against that order the plaintiffs appear to have preferred an appeal. The Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Durg in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 1984 by his order dated 28 1. 1985 allowed that appeal. The injunction granted in favour of the defendants was set aside and the plaintiff application for injunction was allowed. Aggrieved by it the defendants filed Civil Revision No. 76 of 1985. Learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 25. 6. 1985 allowed the revision and set aside the lower appellate Court's order dated 28. 1. 1985 and thus the plaintiffs application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed. Subsequently plaintiffs Moolchand Sharma and Ishwardas bad also filed a review petition (M. C. C. No. 348/85) which also was dismissed vide order dated 3. 8. 1985. ( 4 ) AS mentioned in the S. D. Ms order dated 1. 7. 1985, an application was submitted on behalf of Om Prakash and Tannulal alias Shrichand on 20. 6 1985 before the S. D. M. for removal of the lock put by the police. In support of this application reliance was placed on the order passed by the High Court in the Civil Revision and the order elated 17. 1. 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the aforesaid Criminal Revision. The S. D. M. after hearing the parties passed an order saying that the High Court had found the possession over the shop-in-dispute of Om Prakash and Tannulal alias Shrichand. Thus according to him no further steps are necessary in the proceedings. He also directed to the effect that the possession be got delivered to Om Prakash and Tannulal i. e. , party No. 2. ( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 1. 7. 1985 as was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Moolchand Sharma and Ishwardas filed Criminal Revision No. 57 of 1985 before the Sessions Judge Learned Sessions Judge is by impugned order dated 16. 8. ( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 1. 7. 1985 as was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Moolchand Sharma and Ishwardas filed Criminal Revision No. 57 of 1985 before the Sessions Judge Learned Sessions Judge is by impugned order dated 16. 8. 1985 allowed 51 that revision and remanded the case back to ct the S. D. M. for recording evidence and passing a final order in accordance with law. According to the learned Sessions Judge, there being no finding that there was any possibility of breach of peace, in view of the order of the High Court and the case being not covered by Section 146 (1) of the Code, the S. D. M. was required to proceed with the case and decide a it in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order Om Prakash and Tannulal alias Shrichand have filed the present revision. ( 6 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. State of U. P. and others1 have observed as follows: when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceedings under 5. 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings: should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke it jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not ill the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, civil suit between the parties with regard to the property-in-dispute which involves even the question of possession is pending in the Civil Court. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, civil suit between the parties with regard to the property-in-dispute which involves even the question of possession is pending in the Civil Court. In that civil suit the question of grant of temporary injunction had come up right up to the High Court. In this suit, there obviously would be a finding by the civil court about the possession on which would also depend as to whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. It is thus apparent that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, there would be two parallel proceedings so far as the question of possession is concerned. In my opinion, the aforesaid observations of their Lordships in Ram Sumers case (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the present case also. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the N. As. referred to a single Bench decision of this Court in Iqbal Mohd. Khan and others v. State of M. P, and others. Even in Iqbal Mohd. Khans case (supra), learned Singh Judge in paragraph 7 of the order clearly mentioned that-The only effect of the order of injunction of the civil court is that if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the party in whose favour the order of injunction was issued was not, in fact, in possession of the property on the relevant date, the Magistrate cannot in pursuance of his order direct delivery of the property to the successful party if party in whose favour the injunction order was passed has some how managed to come in possession thereof. It was in view of the complications that had arisen in that case as has been referred to by the learned Judge in paragraph 6 of his order that he directed for the continuance of the appointment of receiver till the disposal of the civil suit which had been filed by one of the parties. It was in view of the complications that had arisen in that case as has been referred to by the learned Judge in paragraph 6 of his order that he directed for the continuance of the appointment of receiver till the disposal of the civil suit which had been filed by one of the parties. ( 9 ) IN the case of Sajjan Singh Bhairun Singh v. Sajjan Singh Jagannarh Singh and another which has been relied on by the learned Single Judge in Iqbal Mohds case (supra) some cases have been referred to in paragraph 8 of the order wherein a view was taken that section 145 of the Code could not be invoked where a civil litigation is pending with regard to the property-in-dispute. It is not so much a question whether in such an eventuality the Criminal Court will have jurisdiction or not but it is more a question of property and desirability. May be that in a given case because of some peculiar circumstances, proceedings under section 145 of the Code may still be required to be initiated, notwithstanding the pendency of the civil litigation with regard to the property in dispute, but in the instant case, I do not find any such circumstance or reason so as to let the criminal proceedings also continue simultaneously with the civil litigation, which as their Lordships have observed in Ram Sumer Puns case (supra) will amount to multiplicity of litigation and not in the interest of parties. Such course would also amount to waste of public time over meaningless litigation. [see also The Manager of Baithakhal Tea State V. Syamlal Kurmi. ( 10 ) IN Laxmana Subrao Patel and others v. Smt. Bhaqubai w/o Subrao Patil it has been laid down that when the Magistrate has the guidance of the civil Court as to who is the person entitled to the properties which were attached under section 145, he is empowered to pass an order dropping the proceedings and incidental order releasing the properties in favour of the party found entitled by the decision of the civil court. In Sajjan Singh sb Jagan Nath Singh v. Sajjan Singh s/0 Bhairu Singh and another the facts were that during the pendency of 145 proceedings before the S. D. M. Sajjan Singh sb Jagan Nath filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction against the other Sajjan Singh. In Sajjan Singh sb Jagan Nath Singh v. Sajjan Singh s/0 Bhairu Singh and another the facts were that during the pendency of 145 proceedings before the S. D. M. Sajjan Singh sb Jagan Nath filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction against the other Sajjan Singh. A temporary injunction was also granted in his favour. That Sajjan Singh then moved an application before the S. D. M. producing the order of temporary injunction and prayed that the 145 proceedings be stayed. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application and ordered the Tahsildar to take over the house as a receiver. Against that order of the S. D. M. a revision was filed in the Court of Session, which made a reference to the High Court recommending that the appointment of receiver be set aside. The High Courtdealt with the matter in two aspects (1) the effect of the temporary injunction granted by the civil court upon the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. and (2) the appointment of the receiver. The high Court held that both the orders of attachment of the house and the appointment of receiver were valid and the civil courts temporary injunction had no effect upon the proceedings before the S. D. M. That order of the High Court was challenged before their Lordships in the Supreme Court where it was submitted that the suit itself had possibly been compromised although the counsels on either side could not give any positive opinion on that point. In that case, their Lordships remanded the case back to the S. D. M. It was observed that Those proceedings commenced as far back as 1967 and the question whether there is or there is not any apprehension of breach of peace will certainly have to be decided in the light of the happenings in the Civil Court. In the meantime to do not see any reason to order the setting aside the order of the High Court. It will be open to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to consider whether the receiver should be continued or not, but in any event, he shall not disturb the possession of Sajjan Singh, son of Jagannath Singh so long as the temporary injunction is outstanding and pending the decision of the proceedings under section 145 of the Code If Criminal Procedure, with a view to handing over the possession to the other side. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel for the non-applicant at a later state submitted an application that the order dated 25 6 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 76 of 1985 was without jurisdiction because of the amendment incorporated in section. 11 5, C. P. C. Reliance has been placed in this connection on a decision of their Lordships in Sri Vishnu Awatar etc. v. Shiv Autar and others and of this Court in Jagman Singh v. Helming and others and DB. decision in C R. No. 6/85 (Peer Bux v. Babulal) dated 12. 2. 1985 Admittedly, against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said civil revision, no steps were taken and the said order had attained a finality so far as those proceedings are concerned in the review petition also that was filed, no such ground was raised. In the present proceedings the said order cannot be challenged. Even otherwise no finding as such is being given merely on the basis of the conclusion or the findings given in that order passed in the civil revision. This objection also stands rejected. ( 12 ) THE facts as they are, the parties or any of them can very well seek any further interim order as they may desire from the civil Court where the suit is pending. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned sessions cannot be up-held. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge is set aside and the order dated 1. 7. 1985 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is restored. .