JUDGMENT Mr. Palok Basu, J. - A proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code was going on in the Court of the Resident Magistrate. Against the earlier preliminary order revisions were filed which came ultimately upto this Court when the matter was remanded to the Magistrate's Court. On remand another order was passed dropping the proceedings on the ground that a civil suit was pending between the parties. This order was challenged by the opposite party before the Sessions Judge in revision who set it aside. Hence this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. It is true the present application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code did not lie and it should have been moved as a revision since the order of the Sessions Judge is date 10.9.1987 and this application was filed in this Court on 15.9.1987 it will within 90 days, and the certified copy of the order and of the memorandum appear to have been sufficiently stamped, this application is treated as revision. 3. It appears that on remand the opposite party Hemraj moved an application before the Magistrate saying that since the matter in controversy in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code is identifically involved in a civil suit, the proceedings be dropped. This found favour with the Magistrate on the strength of the decision in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. page 472. The Sessions Judge, however, recorded a categorical finding on the material existing that the property was not identical and therefore the ratio of the said decision of the Supreme Court was not attracted to the facts of the present case. 4. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit in this Court in reply to the affidavit filed by the applicant. In para 14 of the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that the dispute in the civil suit related only to a common passage measuring 20 feet wide in two fields (which two fields are the subject matter of dispute in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.). It has been reiterated in the counter affidavit that the plots in dispute in the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code are distinct and different from the passage relating to which the civil suit is pending. 5. It has been reiterated in the counter affidavit that the plots in dispute in the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code are distinct and different from the passage relating to which the civil suit is pending. 5. The Magistrate's order indicates that he has not applied his mind to the question of similarity of the property and unless he did so specifically neither he could allow the application of the applicant for dropping the proceedings nor could be ultimately hold that Ram Sumer Puri Mahant's case (supra) was attracted. Under the circumstance this case has again to be remanded to his Court for recording a fresh finding on the application moved on behalf of the applicant for dropping the proceedings. Due opportunity shall be afforded to the parties by the Magistrate and if some evidence by way of documents or affidavits in order to prove or disprove the question of similarity of the property in the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code is sought to be produced before the Magistrate by the parties, they shall be given due opportunity to do so. 6. It may be pointed out that some purchasers have got themselves impleaded in the proceedings here and if they make a fresh application before the Magistrate for their impleadment in the original proceedings, it shall be lawfully decided by him. 7. With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed of. The interim order dated 15.9.1987 is vacated. Application disposed of.