JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J :---At the outset, it needs mention that inspite of the order dated 11th March, 1981, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Criminal Revision Application No. 63 of 1980, Lakhanlal and another v. Dulichand and two others, by which the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Misc. Criminal Case No. 62 of 1980, and also the order dated 27-10-1980, were quashed and set aside, neither the parties nor their learned Counsel, took pains to read and try to understand the implications of the order dated 11-3-1981 and, therefore, continued the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., filing revision applications for the last more than ten years. The order dated 11-3-1981 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara was challenged in this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 1981. By the judgment and order dated 5-8-1981, this Court confirmed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Thus, none cared of the orders referred to above, and kept the proceedings alive till today. Both the learned Counsel of the parties expressed their igrorance about quashing of the proceedings. It means, everyone took his duty lightly and thought the litigation as a game of amusement, wasting valuable time and energy of courts of Justice, prosecuting the case for the last ten years; inspite of the verdict of quashing the proceeding by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, by order dated 11-3-1981, and confirmed by this Court on 5-8-1981. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 17-9-1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1985, Lakhanlal (through His L. Rs.) and others v. Dulichand and another, by which the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondia, passed on 12-8-1982 in Miscelleneous Criminal Case No. 62 of 1980 was set aside. 3. The facts leading to the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and subsequent revisions in that matter, are as under : The applicant No. 1 Dulichand executed an aggreement of sale on 13-4-1976 of Gat No. 470 area 0.94 acre and Gat No. 471 area 0.35 acre of the land situated in village Chutiya-tola, in favour of the deceased Lakhanlal and also put him in possession of the said land on the same day. Since then, Lakhanlal and thereafter his L. Rs. Since then, Lakhanlal and thereafter his L. Rs. are in possession of the land and they had also sown the paddy crops in that land. It is the case of deceased Lakhanlal and his L. Rs. that the applicant Dulichand and others obstructed their possession some times in the year 1979 and, therefore, reports and counter-reports were lodged by both the parties to the Dawaniwada Police Station. As there was a breach of peace, the P.S.O., Dawaniwada, presented an Istagasa before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondia under section 145 Cr.P.C. against the party No. 1 (deceased Lakhanlal) and Party No. 2 (Dulichand and others). On 21st day of October, 1980, the learned S.D.M., Gondia, passed the preliminary order under section 145 Cr.P.C., as under: "WHEREAS reliable information has laid before me by the Police Station Officer Daoniwada for the following effect that --- 2. Gat No. Acres 470 0.94 decimals of mouza 471 0.35 decimals Chutiya 3. And whereas from the report of the Police Station Officer, Daoniwada, I am satisfied that a dispute is likely to be occasion a breach of peace. I, V.N. Gondhalekar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondiya hereby direct the parties to appear before me at Gondiya on and to put in written statement and such a documents or to adduce by putting in affidavit and evidence of such persons as they rely upon in respect of their respective claims as respects the facts of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Party No. 1 Party No. 2 1. Lakhanlal w/o Laxminarayan Sahu. 1. Dulichand Puran Katre. 2. Gopaldas Ganpatlal Sahu, Gondiya. 2. Tanu Dulichand Katre, both r/o Lodhitola Dhutiya. Details of property in dispute as above. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 21st day of October 1980. Sd/- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondiya." Both the parties filed their affidavits in respect of their claims. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M., Gondia, the applicant (party No. 2) filed a Civil Suit No. 17 of 1979 for declaration that the agreement of sale is null and void. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia, in Reg. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M., Gondia, the applicant (party No. 2) filed a Civil Suit No. 17 of 1979 for declaration that the agreement of sale is null and void. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia, in Reg. Civil Suit No. 17 of 1979, decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs (the present applicants) and observed that : "It is hereby declared that the two agreements of sale dated 13-4-1976 in respect of land measuring 0.94 acre of gat No. 470 situated at Chutiyatola and also in respect of land measuring o.35 acre of gat No. 471 situated at Chutiya tola, are void and inoperative in law and that they cannot cloth the defendant with any right, title or interest in the suit lands as above." The learned Judge also observed that : "The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Rs. 2,280/- on account of loss sustained by the plaintiff." 5. Deceased Lakhanlal also filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 103 of 1979 for specific performance of contract. It was decided and dismissed vide judgment and order dated 4-10-1982. 6. Deceased Lakhanlal, being aggrieved in both these Reg. Civil Suit No. 17 of 1979 and Civil Suit No. 103 of 1979, preferred two civil appeals. Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1982 is against the judgment and order in Reg. Civil Suit No. 17 of 1979, while Civil Appeal No. 178 of 1982 is filed against the judgment and order in Reg. Civil suit No. 103 of 1979. 7. The learned Assistant District Judge, Gondia, allowed the Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1982 reversing the judgment and order, declaring the agreement of sale as null and void, which was subject matter in Reg. Civil Suit No. 17 of 1979, while Civil Appeal No. 178 of 1982 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court. The fact remains that the applicant Dulichand has not preferred any appeal or revision against the judgment and order in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1982. Civil Suit No. 17 of 1979, while Civil Appeal No. 178 of 1982 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court. The fact remains that the applicant Dulichand has not preferred any appeal or revision against the judgment and order in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1982. Civil Suit No. 178 of 1982, which was instituted for the specific performance of the contract, and which was remanded to the trial Court, is also dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia, vide order dated 9-8-1991 (This has been stated by Shri Patel, the learned Counsel for the applicant Dulichand, about which Shri Borkar, the learned Counsel for the non-applicants, expressed ignorance.) If these facts are considered, it is apparent that no civil suit has been decided in favour of either of the parties. 8. During proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., the learned S.D.M., Gondia, appointed Shri Chandulal Thakre, Police Patil of Chutiya-tola as receiver on the application filed by the applicant (Dulichand), attached the property and placed the receiver in possession of the two fields. Being aggrieved by this order, deceased Lakhanlal and Gopaldas (Party No. 1) preferred Criminal Revision No.63/80. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, observed in para 17 as follows : "That, when the civil suit was arready pending and the questions are being agitated and considered, there could not have been any question of commncement of proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and then passing the order of the receiver etc. The proceedings themselves, thus, are uncalled for and irregular. The question of protecting anybody's possession has been considered already by the Civil Court. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate thesmsevles are irregular and improper and so also the orders passed therein. Accordingly my findings is recorded against this point. Hence the following order: O R D E R As a result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in queston in Misc. Criminal Case No. 62 of 1980 and so also the order dated 27-10-1980 are hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- W.G. Charde, Addl. Judge, Bhandara." 9. Against this order, i.e. of 11-3-1981 the applicant and another preferred a Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 1981 before this High Court. Criminal Case No. 62 of 1980 and so also the order dated 27-10-1980 are hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- W.G. Charde, Addl. Judge, Bhandara." 9. Against this order, i.e. of 11-3-1981 the applicant and another preferred a Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 1981 before this High Court. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Puranik heard the parties and passed the order on 5-8-1981 and observed in paras 9, 10 and 11 as follows : "As regards the merits of the case, Shri Masodkar, the learned Counsel for the applicants was unable to point out any patent illegality or perversity of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on merits. The persual of the order will clearly show that the learned Sessions Judge has gone through the entire record of the Trial Court and the documents filed therein as also the certified copies of the civil proceedings pending between the parties. The learned Sessions Judge, has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that since the Civil Court was already seized of the matter, the Magistrate should not have dealt with these proceedings under its powers under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, the civil suit was filed prior to the proceedings initiated before the learned Magistrate. The Civil Court had already taken into consideration the question of possession prima facie and the Civil Court had held in favour of the present non-applicants. It was also found that the proceedings were taken up to the higher courts and in each case the order came to be passed in favour of the present non-applicants. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly held that the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were not sustainable and should be quashed. On hearing both the counsel, I am of the opinion that the order of the lower Revisonal Court is proper and justifiable and needs no interference. Hence the following order. Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 1981 is dismissed." It makes it clear that the learned Counsel who were appearing for both the parties in the Court of learned S.D.M., Gondia, probably not read the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Criminal Revision No. 63 of 1980 and the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 1981 and, therefore, the learned S.D.M., Gondia, was misdirected to pass the order dated 12-8-1982 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 62 of 1980 under section 145 of Cr.P.C. The learned S.D.M., Gondia also took no pains to read the earlier judgements and orders. 10. Now, as Shri Patel, the learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that the Regular Civil Suit No. 103 of 1979, which was filed by the deceased Lakhanlal for specific performance of the agreement of sale, being dismissed initially by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia on 4-10-1982 and after remand, also dismissed on 9-8-1991, thereby it means that the agreement of sale is declared as null and void. According to Shri Patel, after the appointment of receiver on 27-10-1987, both the lands were cultivated by the Police Patil and he deposited the sale-proceeds of Rs. 309.25 paise in the Court. Subsequently, as per the directions and order of the learned S.D.M., Gondia, the applicants were put in possession of the fields and since then they are in possession of the fields. 11. In view of the earlier decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Revision No. 63 of 1980, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia need not to have entered into the merits in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1985 preferred by Lakhanlal (His L. Rs.) and others, as issue i.e. maintainability of the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., was already concluded by the judgment and order of learned Adsditional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Criminal Revision No. 63 of 1980, decided on 11-3-1981. There was no propriety to look into the matter and to decide. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances referred in the preceding paras, the instant criminal revision is not tenable. However, hearing both the learned Counsel of the parties, the party who is in possession of the suit property, will continue its possession and both the parties may get their title and interest decided from the appropriate Court. With this direction, the application is disposed of. Application disposed of. *****