Judgment : 1. Inrespect of 2 acres 17 cents of lands covered by S.Nos.224/2, 225 and 226, Rajakkal Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, there had been scramble for possession between Meharunnisa Bi, the revision petitioner herein and one Narayanavelu, the respondent herein and his father Muthu. The claim of the respondent and his father is that the above said extent of land had been leased out to them and that they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same for well over forty years. The revision petitioner, it appears, filed O.S.No.187 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham in respect of the aforesaid extents of lands praying for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction impleading the respondent herein and his father, as party defendants. After hot contest, the suit had been decreed as prayed for. 2. Subsequently, the father of the respondent filed O.S.No.79 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham for bare injunction in respect of the very same properties impleading the revision petitioner herein as the defendant. He also filed, it appears, an interlocutory application for ad-interim injunction and the same had been granted as prayed for and subsequently made absolute. 3. Thereafter, it appears that the revision petitioner sought to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands by the respondent and his father necessitating the respondent, on the strength of the injunction order, to resort to initiation of proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr.P.C. before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur, North Arcot District in Mu.Mu. 14250/86. 4. The revision petitioner entered appearance and contested the matter. 5. Learned Revenue Divisional Officer by his final orders dated 28.2.1987 after due compliance of the procedure, dismissed the petition with direction that the respondent and his men should never interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid lands by the revision petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed Crl.R.C.No.10 of 1987 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, North Arcot district at Vellore, who is in turn, after hearing the respective learned Counsel passed orders reversing the order dated 28.2.1987 in Mu.Mu.No. 14250/86 passed by learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppathur, North Arcot district, giving rise to the present revision. 7. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order of learned District and Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore, cannot at all be stated to be perverse calling for interference. No doubt true it is that the revision petitioners title to the said extent of lands had been declared and consequential relief of injunction had been ordered as prayed for in O.S.No.187 of 1982. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.187 of 1982, the very same learned District Munsif, before whom the respondents father, namely, Muthu had filed O.S.No.79 of 1986 for bare injunction in respect of the very same properties had been pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit and such an order had been agitated by the revision petitioner herein by filing C.M.A. before learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore and the same is pending. 8. What is relevant and of paramount importance in a proceeding under Sec.145, Cr.P.C. is the possession of the subject matter in dispute between the parties on the date when the petition has been filed. As already reported, the possession of the subject matter in dispute on the date when Sec.145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings had been initiated was traceable to the respondent and his father by the grant of an order of temporary injunction in O.S.No.79 of 1986. In such state of affairs, it is but proper for the Revenue Divisional Officer and Executive Magistrate to respect the order of the Civil Court in finding possession in favour of the respondent and pass the final order underSec.145, Cr.P.C. recognising possession of the respondent and leaving the matter for the parties to be agitated before the competent civil forum. It is not as if, as already referred to, there is no pending civil proceedings before the competent forum. In such a situation, it is for the revision petitioner to agitate the matter before the civil forum. 9. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore, reversing the order dated 28.2.1987 in Mu.Mu.No. 14250/86 passed by learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppathur, North Arcot District cannot be stated to be not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. As such, the revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.