JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - All these three cases have arisen from the same proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. and for avoiding repetition they are being disposed of by a common Judgment. 2. Misc. Case is application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. parties have exchanged affidavits and have been finally heard. The criminal revisions are being disposed of at admission stage after notices to the parties, calling the lower Court record and hearing the parties. 3. Dispute between the parties is about a house situate in Mohalla Hai Hanj Khurd, Kannauj. On 16th April, 1990 S. D. M. Kannauj issued preliminary order under Section 145 (1) and attachment order under Section 146(1) Cr. P. C. in respect of the disputed house. Police effected attachment on 2nd June 1990. It appears that on 31st March, 1990 one Anil Kumar filed suit in the Court of Munsif, Kannauj against Ajay Kumar and six others including Jhammu Lal asserting himself to be owner in possession of the house and sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the house. He sought temporary injunction. On 13th April, 1990 learned Munsif dismissed his application. On 20th April, 1990 there was application for withdrawal of the suit. This application was allowed. A revision was filed by Ajay Kumar and others against orders under Section 145 (1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. on 18th April, 1990 operation of the aforesaid order dated 16.4.1990 was stayed. On 25th April, 1990 Sanjay Gupta and three others filed Original suit No. 186 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Farrukhabad against Jhammu Lal and others for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession of the house. It appears that in the suit parties were directed to maintain status quo. On 29th May, 1990 the stay order passed in revision against orders under Sections 145(1) and 146 (1) was vacated. On 19th June, 1990 the said revision was dismissed as. directed against interlocutory order. Meanwhile a writ petition was filed in the High Court and in that writ petition an interim order was passed to the effect that attachment shall continue. That writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. 4. But before that on 6th June, 1990 Jhammu Lal and others filed Criminal Misc. Application no. 6441 of 1990 under Section 482 Cr. Meanwhile a writ petition was filed in the High Court and in that writ petition an interim order was passed to the effect that attachment shall continue. That writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. 4. But before that on 6th June, 1990 Jhammu Lal and others filed Criminal Misc. Application no. 6441 of 1990 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying that the property be directed to be delivered to them. On the other hand, the other party moved the S. D. M. for dropping the proceeding on account of pendency of the civil suit. On 28th June, 1990 the learned Magistrate was of the view that on account of suit pending in the civil Court proceedings could not be continued. Hence he directed dropping of the proceedings. 5. Against this revision was filed before the Sessions Judge. In revision no interim stay was granted 6. On 28th July, 1990 the S. D. M. passed order that the house be delivered to the party from whose possession it was attached on 2. 6. 1990. On 1st August, 1990 the S. D. M. passed order that since the High Court has vacated the order passed in writ petition directing continuance of the attachment order, in view of his order dated 28th July, 1990 possession be delivered to the 2nd party i. e. Ajay Kumar and others. 7. Jhammu Lal and his son Shashi Bhushan filed Criminal Revision No. 1259 of 1990 challenging order dated 28th July, 1990. Shashi Bhushan filed revision No. 1302 of 1990 in this court challenging the order of the S. D. M. dated 1st August, 1990 Record of Criminal Revision No. 156 of 1990 filed by Shashi Bhushan against order dated 28th June, 1990 filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad is before this Court. It appears that on 1st August, 1990 operation of -der dated 28th July, 1990 was stayed' by Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. This order was extended. Meanwhile this Court stayed operations of the orders dated 28th July, 1990 and 1st August, 1990. Although in Misc. It appears that on 1st August, 1990 operation of -der dated 28th July, 1990 was stayed' by Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. This order was extended. Meanwhile this Court stayed operations of the orders dated 28th July, 1990 and 1st August, 1990. Although in Misc. Case No. 6441 of 1990 parties have exchanged affidavits and although in the Criminal Revision filed in this Court Counter affidavits have been filed yet in view of the fact that the lower Court records have come to this court all those affidavits do not have significance parties have been heard at length not only in the criminal revisions but also in the Misc. Criminal case under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Hence, all the three cases are being disposed of finally. 8. Criminal Revision against order dated 28th June, 1990 is pending before the Sessions Judge concerned hence no opinion need be expressed upon the validity of that order. It would suffice to say that the suit filed before the Munsif was withdrawn without any adjudication on merits. That suit was prior to the commencement of proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr. P. C. The suit filed before the Civil Judge was subsequent but in that suit there is an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Then it is evident that on 1st August, 1990 the Sessions Judge had stayed operation of order dated 28th June, 1990. It cannot be ascertained with certainty whether on August, 1990 the order of stay passed by the Sessions Judge was earlier in order of time or order of the Magistrate was prior in order of time. A stay order operates from the time it is passed when the time cannot be precisely fixed it should be honoured without being further questioned. When the order staying the operation of order dated 28th June, 1990 has to be honoured the order dated 31st July, 1990 cannot be executed. At any rate, there is direction of the Civil Court to the parties to maintain status quo. Considering all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Sessions Judge concerned should be given an opportunity to decide the revisions on merits. Question of possession is a question of fact which need not be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. or in criminal revision. Hence, in result, Misc, application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is dismissed. Question of possession is a question of fact which need not be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. or in criminal revision. Hence, in result, Misc, application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is dismissed. Criminal revisions are allowed. Orders dated 28th July, 1990 and 1st August, 1990 are set aside. Operation of order dated 28th June, 1990 shall remain stayed till decision of criminal Revision No. 156 of 1990 pending before the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. Record be forthwith sent to the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad for decision of the aforesaid criminal revision. Learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad is directed to decide the revisions on merits after hearing the parties within two months of the receipt of the record. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in all the three cases disposed of by this order. Application under section 482 Dismissed.