Judgment : BHASKARA RAO, J. (1) THIS is a petition filed under Sec. 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking caveat expecting a criminal revision case to be filed against the proceedings no. A/3598/88 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram, rangareddy District. (2) THE facts in brief are : Proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. were initiated against the petitioners and respondents herein in respect of the land in S. Nos. 319/1 and 319/2 in Maktal village. After taking the relevant steps and calling for the report of the Revenue inspector, the M. R. O. , in the light of the material available lifted the order under Sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners apprehending that the respondents may file a Criminal Revision case in this High Court against that order of the M. R. O. , filed the present petition under Sec. 148-A of the Code of Civil procedure. Office raised an objection as regards the maintainability of the petition filed under the provisions of the Civil procedure Code in Criminal Proceedings. (3) THE contention of Mr. E. S. R. Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the word court occurring in section 148-A C. P. C. , is comprehensive enough to take-in both Civil as well criminal Courts and therefore the petition is maintainable. The learned Public prosecutor submitted that the proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. , are criminal in nature and therefore any proceedings arising thereunder are of criminal nature attracting the provisions of the Criminal procedure Code alone and not those of civil Procedure Code. Therefore the office-objection is sustainable. (4) TO resolve the respective contentions, it is necessary at the outset to have a look at Sec, 148-A of the Civil procedure Code, which reads :"148 A. Right to lodge a caveat. (1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "expecting or apprehending institution of an application or proceeding in a Court, a caveator is entitled to lodge a caveat application under this provision. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "expecting or apprehending institution of an application or proceeding in a Court, a caveator is entitled to lodge a caveat application under this provision. But in so far as the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, the very preliminary note to the code of 1908 specifically states :"whereas it is expedient to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature; it is hereby enacted as follows :-"so, a/so the Statement of objects and reason of Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 states at the outset ;"the law relating to the procedure in suits and civil proceedings in India (except those in the State of Jammu and kashmir and Nagaland and the Tribal areas of Assam and certain other areas) is contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. . . "the provisions, thus, contained in the code of Civil Procedure govern the proceedings before the Courts of Civil Judicature and relate to the procedure in suits and civil proceedings. Again Sec, 5 of the Civil Procedure Code extends application of the provisions thereof to revenue Courts having jurisdiction to entertain suits or other proceedings relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purposes. There is no other provision in the Code of civil Procedure extending its application to any other proceedings, much less to criminal proceedings. (5) IT is interesting again to notice that equally the Statement of objects and reasons under the Prefatory note to the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads at the outset :"the law relating to criminal procedure applicable to all criminal proceedings in India (except those in the States of Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland and tribal Areas in Assam) is contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. . . "therefore, the law relating to criminal procedure applicable to all criminal proceedings is contained in the Code of criminal Procedure whereas the law relating to the procedure in suits and civil proceedings is contained in the Code of civil Procedure. (6) THE proceedings in question are admittedly under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate competent to hold inquiry under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. , is the Executive magistrate, who is appointed under sec. 20 Cr. (6) THE proceedings in question are admittedly under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate competent to hold inquiry under Sec. 145 Cr. P. C. , is the Executive magistrate, who is appointed under sec. 20 Cr. P. C. Section 20 falls in chapter II of Cr, P. C. , dealing with constitution of Criminal Courts and offices. Therefore, section 145 Cr. P. C. proceedings are purely criminal in nature and intended to avert breach of peace and crimes in consequence thereof, fn view of this the submission of Mr. E, S. R. Murthy that the proceedings under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. , are civil in nature is patently untenable. (7) THE learned counsel Mr. E. S. R. Murthy, submitting that Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines court as including all judges and magistrates and all persons legally authorised to take evidence, sought to contend that the court occurring in Sec. 148a C. P. C. , is one such and therefore whether or not it is a Court of Civil Judicature, the provisions in Sec. 148-A C. P. C. , applies to all Courts. It is to be born in mind that the Indian Evidence Act deals with the Law of Evidence applicable to both Civil and Criminal proceedings and thus comprehensive in its nature whereas the Codes of Civil Procedure and Criminal procedure are separate and distinct by nature and therefore the definition of court given in the Indian Evidence Act cannot be sought to be invoked in a context of the present nature. The Supreme court in Ramrao Vs Narayan (AIR 1969 S. C. 724) referring to Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act held that the definition thereunder is devised for the purpose of the Evidence Act and will not necessarily apply to the Code of Criminal procedure. Referring to the expression court of Justice defined by Sec. 20 of the Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, the Supreme court equally held that it again is not a definition of the expression court as used in the Criminal Procedure Code. In view of this, the contention of Mr. ES. R murthy, in this behalf is without any substance. (8) THE decisions of the Allahabad high Court in Sohanlal Vs Bindershwari devi ( AIR 1959 All. In view of this, the contention of Mr. ES. R murthy, in this behalf is without any substance. (8) THE decisions of the Allahabad high Court in Sohanlal Vs Bindershwari devi ( AIR 1959 All. 419 ) and Satdeo vs Baba Raghavdas (AIR 1953 All 419) relate to the provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act and therefore have no relevance to the present issue. The decision of the Supreme Court in T. H hussain Vs M. P. Mondear (AIR 1958 s. C. 376) relates to the question of cancellation of bail under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus has no application to the present question. The other decision of the Patna High court in Rama Singh Vs Harakhdhari singh (XLVII (1918) Indian Cases 710) is one relating to Sec. 3 of the indian Evidence Act and for the reasons assigned supra, this decision is also of no help to the petitioners. (9) IN view of the afore-mentioned reasons, Sec. 148-A of the Civil Procedure code cannot be invoked in Criminal proceedings. However, in proper cases relief similar to the one covered by sec. 148-A C. P. C. , can be extended by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under sec 482 Cr. P. C. , to Criminal Proceedings in the interest of justice. The office-objection is accordingly upheld and the petition rejected as not maintainable.