JUDGMENT Om Prakash Pradhan, J. - By means of this writ petition, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 26.2.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khaga and order dated 5.7.1991 passed by the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur and for a direction that the dispute between the parties may be decided in Civil suit No. 70 of 1991 filed by the petitioners in the Court of Munsif Khaga, district Fatehpur. 1. The dispute relates to the possession over the 28 plots measuring 32 bigha 3 biswas situate in village Maupara, Pragana Hathgaon, District Fatehpur. It appears that proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C., were initiated by S.D. Khaqa on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 Smt. Andhari. Preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. in respect of these afore- said plots was drawn by the S.D.M. Khaga on 15.5.1987 and both parties were required to file their written-statements of claim to possession. The petitioners claimed their possession over the said plots on the basis of a Will executed by Sheo Mangal and contended that their names have been mutated over the said plots in the year 1979. The petitioners also denied the possession of Smt. Andhari and further contended that there was no apprehension of breach of peace in respect of the afore- said plots. Smt. Andhari, on the other hand, claimed to be in possession over the said plots in her capacity as the legal heir of Sheo Mangal. According to Smt. Andhari, she is the sister of late Sheo Mangal. She further pleaded that the Will relied upon by the petitioners is forged and fictitious. S.D.M. Khaga passed an order on 12.9.89 presumably under Section 145 (4) Cr. P.C. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred a revision which was allowed on 5.9.1990 by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, who remanded the case to the S.D.M. for a fresh decision. After remand of the case, Smt. Andhari filed an application on 4.12.1990 together with an affidavit for attachment of the aforesaid plots arid its standing crops. Another application together with an affidavit containing the same prayer was filed by Smt. Andhari on 21.2.1991 before the S.D.M., and it further appears that the S.D.M. passed an order for attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. on 26.2.1991. Another application together with an affidavit containing the same prayer was filed by Smt. Andhari on 21.2.1991 before the S.D.M., and it further appears that the S.D.M. passed an order for attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. on 26.2.1991. According to the petitioners, they had filed objections before the S.D.M. on 26.2.1991 saying that they had filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsif Khaga bearing suit No. 70 of 1991 and Munsif Khaga had passed a temporary injunction against Smt. Andhari and others on 23.2.1991 restraining them from interfering in the petitioner's possession over the aforesaid plots. According to the petitioners, once a temporary injunction had been passed on 23.2.1991 by the learned Munsif Khaga in their favour, it was not open to the S.D.M. Khaga to pass an order for attachment on the said plots in exercise of his power under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C., since no parallel proceeding could go on simultaneously. The petitioners also preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur against the order dated 26.2.1991 passed by the S.D.M. Khaga but this revision also came to be dismissed on 5.7.1991. It is under these circumstances that this writ petition was filed by the petitioners in this Court on 9.7.1991 for the aforesaid reliefs. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and this writ petition has been heard on merits since learned counsel of both the parties agreed for this course. 3. Learned counsel of the petitioners contended that it was not open to S.D.M. Khaga to pass an order of attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr. P.C. on 26.2.1991 because the petitioners had already filed civil suit No. 70 Of 1991 in respect of these very plots in the court of Munsif Khaga and a temporary injunction had been granted in their favour on 23.2.1991 in the said suit by the learned Munsif Khaga. The copy of the temporary injunction granted on 23.2.1991 is Annexure- 2 of the writ petition. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the villages in which the aforesaid plots are situate, hating come under consolidation operations, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not continue. The copy of the temporary injunction granted on 23.2.1991 is Annexure- 2 of the writ petition. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the villages in which the aforesaid plots are situate, hating come under consolidation operations, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not continue. In substance, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not be continued in the wake of the civil suit No. 70 of 1991 filed by the petitioners in the Court of Munsif Khaga in respect of these plots and also because of the consolidation operations. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has urged, on the other hand, that the petitioners filed civil suit No. 70 of 1991 in the Court of Munsif Khaga without even making a reference therein regarding the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of the very same plots and, therefore, the petitioners obtained the ex-parte temporary injunction on 26.2.1991 without bringing the proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C. to the notice of the Court of Munsif Khaga in the civil suit W. 70 of 1991. A copy of the plaint of the said civil suit has been filed as per Annexure-CA/4 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The copy of temporary injunction application and the copy of the affidavit in support thereof are Annexure CA/4 and CA/6 respectively of the said counter- affidavit. Their perusal goes to indicate that the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs of the civil suit No. 70 of 1991, did not make a reference at all about the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in respect of these very plots, even though the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were pending in the Court of S.D.M. Khaga since 1987. Learned counsel of the respondent No. 1 further contended that proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. would not abate in the wake of consolidation operations. It has also been urged on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that attachment in pursuance of the order dated 26.2.1991 passed by the S.D.M. Khaga under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. has already been affected on 11.3.1991 and the property in dispute has been placed in the Supurdagi of two Supurdars. It has also been urged on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that attachment in pursuance of the order dated 26.2.1991 passed by the S.D.M. Khaga under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. has already been affected on 11.3.1991 and the property in dispute has been placed in the Supurdagi of two Supurdars. In this behalf, copy of the Fard Kurki has been filed as per Annexure CA/9 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel of the petitioners has relied upon the following two cases: (i) Ramji Bind v. State of U.P., 1990(27) A.C.C. 224 and (ii) Smt. Siya Kishori v. Lallu, 1991 A.C.C. (Suppl.) 282. 6. So far as the first case goes, it appears that the case was remanded to the learned S.D.M. for recording findings of three aspects specified in the judgment. It is not clear from the perusal of the said judgment if the civil suit had been filed before the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. was drawn by the Magistrate concerned. In my view, this case is of little assistance to petitioners. 7. The second case relied upon by the petitioners' learned counsel is also of no consequence to the petitioners since it has not been asserted that the dispute regarding these plots in sub-judice during the consolidation operations. Besides this, proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. do not abate simply because the village in which the property in dispute is situate comes under consolidation operations. I am fortified in this view of the matter by the case reported in Baijnath Singh v. State of U.P., 1978(15) A.C.C 232. 8. It is clear from the plaint of civil suit- No. 70 of 1991 filed in the Court of Munsif Khaga by the petitioners of this writ petition that this suit was filed in February, 1991 for restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs on the allegations that the plaintiffs are bhumidhars in possession of the aforesaid plots and the defendants are trying to interfere in their possession over the same. As already indicated earlier, preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. was drawn as back as on 15.5.1987 and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. As already indicated earlier, preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. was drawn as back as on 15.5.1987 and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. had also been concluded on merits by the S.D.M. Khaga on 12.9.1989 but a revision was filed against the said order by the petitioners and this revision was allowed on 5.9.1990 and the case was remanded for a fresh decision to the S.D.M. An application for attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent No. 1 in the Court of S.D.M. on 4.12.90 together with an affidavit. Copies of this application and affidavit are Annexure CA-1 and CA/3 to the counter-affidavit. It appears that the petitioners filed the civil suit sometime in the third week of February, 1991 in the Court of Munsif Khaga in respect of these plots possibly to thwart the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the action initiated by the respondent No. 1 for attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. Not only this, the petitioners concealed in the plaint of the said civil suit that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were pending about the very same plots in the court of S.D.M. Khaga since 1987. Even the objections filed against the application for attachment under Section 146 Cr.P.C. appears to have been filed late on 26.2.1991 in the Court of S.D.M. It appears that these objections were not filed before the order of attachment under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. was passed on 26.2.1991 by the S.D.M. Khaga because their is not reference in this order about such objections having been filed. 9. The learned IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur while disposing of the revision against this order of attachment has considered the points raised on behalf of the petitioners and he was perfectly justified in holding that the order under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. is not revisable. Even on merits, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was right in repelling the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that there could be no parallel proceedings in the wake of the civil suit No. 79 of 1991 filed in the court of Munsif Khaga by the petitioners. Even on merits, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was right in repelling the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that there could be no parallel proceedings in the wake of the civil suit No. 79 of 1991 filed in the court of Munsif Khaga by the petitioners. As already indicated above, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were pending before the S.D.M. since-1987' and the S.D.M. had concluded these proceedings on 12.9.1989 but the case was remanded to him for a fresh decision in the wake of the order dated 5.9.1990 passed in revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 12.9.1989. The position would have been altogether different if the civil suit had been instituted before the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. came to be passed on 15.5.1987. It may be pointed out that the ex-parte temporary injunction was granted by the learned Munsif in the said civil suit on 23.2.1991 and this ex-parte order of temporary injunction had not been made absolute so far by the learned Munsif. It appears from a perusal of the certified copy of the order dated 10.8.1992 passed in the said civil suit filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit of Bodhan Singh on 7.9.1992 that the temporary injunction application is fixed for disposal on 18.11.1992 and till then, the temporary injunction has been extended. 10. In his order dated 26.2.1991, the learned S.D.M. has pointed out the existence of imminent danger of breach of peace between the parties with regard to possession over the said plots and he, therefore, passed the order of attachment of the aforesaid 28 plots and directed the Station Officer, Hathgaon, to effect the attachment and place the plots in the Supurdagi of an independent person. As already indicated above, this order of attachment was implemented on 11.3.1991 by the local police as per Annexure-CA/9 of the counter- affidavit. In the rejoinder-affidavit, it has been pointed out that there was is question of attachment on 11.7.1991 since the order-sheet dated 6.7.1991 of the S.D.M.'s court indicates that the stay order passed by this Court was placed on file on that date and the proceedings were stayed. So far as this assertion in the rejoinder-affidavit of Bodhan Singh is concerned, it may be pointed out, that it does not displace the attachment of the said plots effected on 11.3.1991 as appears from Annexure-CA/9 of the counter-affidavit. So far as this assertion in the rejoinder-affidavit of Bodhan Singh is concerned, it may be pointed out, that it does not displace the attachment of the said plots effected on 11.3.1991 as appears from Annexure-CA/9 of the counter-affidavit. 11. The present is not. a case in which the civil suit No. 70 of 1991 which has been placed as a sheet-anchor on behalf of the petitioners, had been instituted before the preliminary order was passed in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, it was instituted long after the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated by virtue of the preliminary order passed on 15.5.1987. In the circumstances, the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri's case (4) would no apply to the present case, particularly, in the background that the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was also concealed in the plaint giving rise to civil suit No. 70 of 1991. Likewise, the consolidation operations would not also have he effect of abating the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 12. For what. has been said above, the orders dated 26.2.1991 and 5.7.1991 passed by S.D.M. Khaga and IVth Addl Sessions Judge, Fatehpur respectively do not suffer from any illegality, nor can they be said to suffer from any lack of jurisdiction. They are accordingly, not liable to be quashed. 13. This writ petition lacks merit is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.