JAIN, J.— This revision u/s. 397 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinmal dated 30.7.1982 whereby he has ordered the Tehsildar-Receiver to deliver the possession of disputed plot to Roop Chand, legal representative of Mishrilal. (2). Brief facts which give rise to this revision are that on 6.11.1968 proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. were initiated by Mishrilal s/o Mavji against Tejkanwar, Kishore Singh and Mool Chand before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhinmal. It was alleged by party no. 1 Mishrilal that the disputed plot was in his possession since long, the party no. 2 threatened to disposses them from the disputed plot with an allegation that they have purchased the same and there was an apprehension of breach of peace. Upon which, proceedings u/s. 145 (1) were drawn and both the parties were given opportunity to file their respective claims. The plot was attached by the order dated 20.7.74 and the S.H.Q. P.S. Bhinmal was appointed as a Receiver. The parties produced their witnesses, affidavits of their witnesses in support of their claim, the witnesses were cross-examined and after hearing the S.D.M., Bhinmal vide his order dated 5.10.79 declared that Mishrilal s/o Mavji was in possession of the disputed plot. Mool Chand, the party No. 2 filed a revision no. 37/79 before the learned Sessions Judge, who remanded the case back vide his order dt. 28.3.1980 with a direction to decide afresh. Under remand, the S.D.M. Bhinmal registered the case no. 28/80 and after considering oral and documentary evidence gave finding that within two months of the passing of the preliminary order, the applicant Mishrilal was in the possession of the disputed plot. Tehsildar, Bhinmal was appointed as Receiver vide order dated 30,7.1982. Being aggrieved by the order of learned S.D.M. Mool Chand, party No. 2 has filed this revision. (3). Mr. H.M. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. are misconceived as only the civil court is competent to determine the rights of the parties. He has also submitted that once the title of Mool Chand over the plot in dispute has been established by the judgement of the civil court Ex. D.-2 dt. P.C. are misconceived as only the civil court is competent to determine the rights of the parties. He has also submitted that once the title of Mool Chand over the plot in dispute has been established by the judgement of the civil court Ex. D.-2 dt. 31.5.1958, and further by the sale deed Ex.D-8 executed by Kishore Singh s/o Ranjit Singh in favour of Mool Chand, the initiation of proceedings u/s. 145 by Mishrilal, Party No. 1 in the year 1968 were illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. (1), Arvind Singh Vs. State of Raj. (2), Udmi Ram vs. Dharam Singh (3) and Shyam Sunder vs. State of Raj. (4). (4). Mr. T.S. Champawat, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has not disputed the legal proposition enunciated in the above case law but submitted that on perusal of the judgements of the civil court it will reveal that it could not be said that title and factum of possession have been fully adjudicated about the same disputed property. He has further submitted that the alleged decisions of the civil court were delivered as early as in the year 1958 much before the initiation of this criminal proceedings by Mishrilal in the year 1968, so the cases cited are quite distinguishable. He has also submitted that the order passed by the learned S.D.M. is perfect and placed reliance on Jhunamal @ Devandas Vs. State of M.P. (5). (5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. (6). This case has a chequered history, the disputed plot Bada belonged to one Ranjit Singh. Ranjit Singh had mortgaged this plot with Mishrilal, Hastimal and Jaswant Raj on 29.7.1942. By a registered mortgage deed Ex. D-l Mishrilal and Hastimal had sub-mortgaged this plot with Birdhi Chand s/o Chimanlal on 22.2.1946. Birdhi Chand on the basis of sub-mortgage filed a suit No. 56/55 against Mishrilal and Hastimal and the original mortgager Ranjit Singh. Ranjit Singh also sold this plot to Ockchand @ Tara Chand s/o Mool Chand on 12.5.1953. During the pendency of the suit Ranjit Singh had expired and his son Kishore Singh had been brought on record as legal representative. Ranjit Singh also sold this plot to Ockchand @ Tara Chand s/o Mool Chand on 12.5.1953. During the pendency of the suit Ranjit Singh had expired and his son Kishore Singh had been brought on record as legal representative. Kishore Singh had sold this plot to Mool Singh and Bhoor Singh on 18.2.1957, the same was registered on 2.3.1957 vide Ex. D.8. Kishore Singh s/o Ranjit Singh had sold this plot to Mishrilal s/o Tunga, but there is an affidavit dt. 30.7.74. Ex. 2 filed by Kishore Singh admitting the sale to Mool Singh and Bhoor Singh on 18.2.57 and also stated therein that the possession remained with Mishrilal s/o Mavji as he has not paid the entire amount. The suit no. 56/55 was decreed on 31.5.1958 in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex. D. 2 and it was held that the original mortgage has been fully paid up. Ranjit Singh and Kishore Singh were entitled to it as owners and the plot in dispute could not be sold in the suit brought by sub-mortgager, as mortgage has already been paid off. In the suit decree was passed in favour of Birdhi Chand and against Mishrilal, Hastimal etc. and suit against Kishore Singh s/o Ranjit Singh was dismissed. It is also on record that a rent note was executed at the time of mortgage for interest on mortgage. Suit No. 37/56 for arrears of interest was brought by Mishrilal and Hastimal against Ranjit Singh. This suit had been dismissed as the mortgage had been extinguished on 28.2.1958. (7). In Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. (supra) their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: — "When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated , initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under S. 145 of the Code, would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of Receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation." (8). In the case of Arvind Singh Vs. State of Raj. (supra), the matter was pending in civil court and interim order was passed and it was ordered that it would not be proper to allow criminal proceedings to continue and the same were quashed by this Court. (9). In Udmi Ram Vs. Dharam Singh (supra), it has been held that where a civil or revenue litigation is pending between the parties about the disputed property in which question of possession of property is very much involved, the parties must approach the civil or revenue court as the case may be. (10). In Shyam Sunder Vs. State of Raj. (supra) it has been held that when civil suit in respect of same property is pending, the criminal proceedings u/s. 145 are not maintainable. It has also been observed that while dropping proceedings u/s. 145, it is open to court to make consequential or incidental order to restore possession to party from whom it had been taken before proceedings were started. (11). The ratio of the cases cited is that a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal court even when the civil suit is pending in respect of same subject matter. I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of the above cases. But in the present case admittedly no civil suit was pending simultaneously at the time of litigation of criminal proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. so the cases cited above are not applicable, and the petitioner in the facts of this case cannot derive any advantage out of it. So in this revision the main question which arises for consideration is whether on the basis of previous judgments Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-21 of the year 1958, the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. are misconceived and be quashed or in other words the concluded proceedings should be set at naught in view of the said previous judgments delivered by the civil court. In Jhunamal @ Devandas Vs. D-2 and Ex. D-21 of the year 1958, the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. are misconceived and be quashed or in other words the concluded proceedings should be set at naught in view of the said previous judgments delivered by the civil court. In Jhunamal @ Devandas Vs. State of M.P., (supra) their Lordships after considering Ram Sumer Puri Mahants case (supra) have observed as under : — "It is true that in cases of dispute regarding immovable property a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter. That does not however mean that a concluded order under S. 145 Cr. P.C. made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil Court. An order made under S. 145 Cr. P.C. deals only with the factum of possession of the party as on a particular day. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the civil court. The unsuccessful party therefore must get relief only in the civil court. He may move the civil Court with paroperty constituted suit. He may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right to possession. The civil Court has jurisdiction to give a finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached." (12). It is true that in the instant case there was a decree of civil court dated 31.5.1958 Ex. D-2 passed in civil suit no. 56/55 in favour of Mool Chand and it was established that he was in possession. The ejectment suit for arrears of rent and possession brought by Mishrilal against Ranjit Singh was also dismissed on the ground that mortgage has been extinguished. It has also come on record that Mool Chand has purchased plot from Kishore Singh but they were dispossessed in 1968 and due to long gap of so many years between 1958 to 1968, the possibility of dispossession cannot be ruled out. However, the rights of the parties have been determined by the civil court long back by the earlier decisions but admittedly they were not in possession of the property, within two months of passing of preliminary order. However, the rights of the parties have been determined by the civil court long back by the earlier decisions but admittedly they were not in possession of the property, within two months of passing of preliminary order. The petitioner has not been able to prove or explain, how and in what manner they were dispossessed within required period of two months. Therefore, the learned S.D.M. has rightly come to the conclusion that at the time of passing of the. preliminary order, Mishrilal was in possession. As per material available on record and as admitted by the parties before me, neither any suit is pending nor any suit was pending in the year 1968 when the preliminary order was passed and, therefore, under these circumstances the ratio of Jhunamals case is fully applicable and the final order under S. 145 Cr. P.C. cannot be set at naught on the basis of earlier decision of civil suit decided in the year 1958 in favour of the petitioner. The aggrieved party can seek relief from the civil court. The learned Magistrate has also considered the other aspect that Tejkanwar widow of Ranjit Singh, Ratan Singh and Arjun Singh sons of Ranjit Singh had sold this disputed plot by a registered sale deed dt. 16.7.74 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and on the basis of that Mishrilal Party No. 1 continued to remain in possession of the disputed plot in addition to the fact that Mishrilal was in possession within two months of the passing of the preliminary order dated 6.11.1968. In view of the above discussion and under the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no error or illegality in the order of learned S.D.M. and the proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. cannot be quashed. (13). In the result, this revision petition is dismissed