Honble BALIA, J.—The two miscellaneous appeals and one criminal revision arise out of same transaction, which has led dispute between the parties. Hence they are being decided by a common order. (2). Briefly stated the dispute arose out of an agreement to sell agricultural land executed by Utma Ram, defendant in favour of Nirmla Devi, plaintiff. The vendor having failed to execute sale-deed in favour of Nirmla Devi Nirmala Devi instituted a civil suit for specific performance of agreement against Utma Ram in Jan. 1986. It was alleged by her that she was put in possession of the suit property under the said agreement and her possession be protected from interference by defendant by grant of a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2. A temporary injunction was granted in her favour on 30th Oct. 1986. It may be noted that defendant had not put in appearance at the time when the temporary injunction was granted against him and the suit was ultimately decreed ex-parte on 30th Feb. 1987. Somewhere in 1988 the plaintiff decree-holder applied for execution of decree. In Dec. 1988, plaintiff Nirmala Devi also moved an application under Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code apprehending breach of peace in connection with the possession of the suit property as a result of which the suit property was attached and handed over to receiver on 24.2.89. During this period in Jan, 1989, defendant Utma Ram having come to know about the ex-parte decree against him moved an application for setting-aside the said ex- parte decree. The ex-parte decree was set-aside by the order of the trial court dt. 27.9.89, and revision against the said order was also dismissed by this court on 4.10.90. (3). After ex-parte decree passed against Utma Ram was set-aside on 27.9.89 by the trial court. S.D.M. by his order dt. 21.7.90 ordered that possession of the suit property be delivered to plaintiff Nirmala Devi by the receiver. In pursuance of that direction, Nirmala Devi was put in possession on 23.7.90 and she continued to be in possession upto now. (4). Against the order passed by S.D.O. on 21.7.90 for delivery of possession to Nirmala Devi, Utma Ram had preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge who by order dt. In pursuance of that direction, Nirmala Devi was put in possession on 23.7.90 and she continued to be in possession upto now. (4). Against the order passed by S.D.O. on 21.7.90 for delivery of possession to Nirmala Devi, Utma Ram had preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge who by order dt. 2.8.91 came to the conclusion that possession of the disputed property was taken by the receiver from Utma Ram and suit is still subjudice before the civil court. The possession should be delivered back to the person from whom it was taken viz to Utma Ram. (5). Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 12.8.91 Nirmala Devi had preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 146/91. (6) The plaintiff had moved another application under Or. 39 Rule 1 & 2 for grant of temporary injunction on 16.8.91 for protecting his possession by grant of temporary injunction. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit and be is presently also in possession as in pursuance of the orders of the S.D.M., he has been put back in possession in July 23, 1990. This application of the plaintiff was rejected by the trial court by holding that for protecting the possession of plaintiff a temporary injunction was passed on 13th Oct. 1986, that was operative until the decision of suit. Since ex-parte decree has been set-aside and suit has been restored to its original stage, the order dt. 30.10.86 still remains in force and therefore, there is no need to pass a second order. It is this order dt. 5.9.91 which is subject matter of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 308/91 filed by Utma Ram. (7). After the order dt. 5.9.91 was passed, the defendant moved another application under Order 39 rule 4 CPC read with Sec. 151 for discharging of interim order dt. 30.10.86 which was held to be operative by the trial courts order dt. 5.9.91. This application of the defendant was rejected by holding that the order dated 5.9.91 which was passed after hearing both the parties is in fact, an order confirming order dt. 30.10.86 and in that view of the admitted position, that the present possession of the suit property is with plaintiff since the same was delivered to her by the receiver, the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff is proved. 30.10.86 and in that view of the admitted position, that the present possession of the suit property is with plaintiff since the same was delivered to her by the receiver, the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff is proved. The court also observed that the finding given in proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. are not binding on the Civil Court and therefore defendant cannot derive any benefit out of the same. In view of this the application of Utma Ram under Or. 39 rule 4 CPC was also dismissed on 10.7.92 which is subject matter of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 325/92. (8). It was contended by Mr. Jain and Miss. Rao appearing for Utma Ram that order dt. 30.10.86 passed in favour of plaintiff by holding prima facie her to be in possession of the property being an ex-parte order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to defendant, coupled with the fact that on initiation of proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. by the plaintiff possession of the suit property was taken by the receiver from the defendant, made it incumbent upon the trial court to have considered all material on record afresh uninfluenced by its decision dt. 30.10.86 or by any order under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The trial court was apparently labouring under the impression that the findings which were recorded while passing order of 30th Oct. 1986 did not require reconsideration, in view of the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since 23rd July 1990. This approach of the learned trial Judge according to the counsel for Utma Ram was erroneous in law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. (9). On the other hand Mr. Maheshwari appearing for Nirmala Devi, contended that since plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the suit property since 23rd July 1990, and prior to that date the trial court has found in her favour a prima facie case relating to her possession and passed a temporary injunction which continued to be in force throughout the proceedings and is still in force, it cannot be said that she was not in possession at the time of filing of the suit or even now and therefore orders under challenge in Appeal No. 325/92 and 308/91 do not require any interference. (10). Regarding the Criminal Revision, Mr. (10). Regarding the Criminal Revision, Mr. Maheshwaris contention is that in view of the fact that the a subject matter was already subjudiced before the Civil Court and the suit property was already matter of temporary injunction, granted by the Civil Judge, the proceedings before Sessions Judge were of academic importance as in view of subsisting order of the Civil Court, protecting possession of the plaintiff, the Sessions Judge while exercising power under the Criminal Procedure Code could not have passed any order affecting the efficacy of injunction passed by the Civil Court. (11). Having carefully considered the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that so far as the Criminal Revision No. 146/91 is concerned it, merit acceptance for the simple reason that by its order dt. 5.9.91 the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar has already opined that the interim order dt 13.10.86 passed in favour of the plaintiff protecting his possession continues to be in force and that also protects the possession which plaintiff has acquired from receiver on 23rd July 1990. In view of this subsisting order of Civil court between the parties, in my opinion the Criminal court was not justified in issuing any further direction about delivery of possession of suit property over-riding the said injunction order, irrespective of the fact whether the possession of the property by the receiver was obtained from defendant or the plaintiff. In that view of the matter without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case about the fact as to from whom possession was taken by the receiver the Criminal Revision No. 146/91 filed by Nirmala Devi is allowed and the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dt. 12.8.91 is set-aside. (12). Coming to two Miscellaneous Appeals referred to above, I am of the opinion that the contention of appellants counsel merit acceptance. Defendant had sufficient cause for not appearing in the suit warranting setting-aside of ex-parte decree. It must be held that the order dt. 30.10.86 was also passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the defendant. (12). Coming to two Miscellaneous Appeals referred to above, I am of the opinion that the contention of appellants counsel merit acceptance. Defendant had sufficient cause for not appearing in the suit warranting setting-aside of ex-parte decree. It must be held that the order dt. 30.10.86 was also passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the defendant. As a necessary consequence of that, it must also be held that the defendant had no opportunity to show that on the date of filing of the suit or as on 13.10.86 when the ex-parte order was passed against him he and not the plaintiff, was in possession of the suit property not warranting issue of temporary injunction. This is what is his prayer was while opposing the plaintiffs second application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 and also in the application under Order 39 rule 4. The fact that plaintiff had been put in possession by the order of S.D.M. on 23rd July 1990 was for that matter not relevant to arrive at any conclusion about the validity of the order dt. 30.10.86. If the plaintiff was not found entitled to grant of temporary injunction in the first instance it becomes very relevant while considering the second application as to from whom possession was taken by the receiver under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. If the plaintiff was not found to be in possession on 30.10.86 and it is found that possession by the receiver under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. was taken from defendant and the matter still remain subjudice as a result of setting aside of ex-parte decree, the order dt. 30.10.86 cannot provide a foundation for protecting possession obtained under Section 145 Cr. P.C. It cannot be doubted that ordinarily the possession taken over under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. is to be restored back to the party from whom it has been taken until rights of the parties are determined by a Competent Civil Court. Therefore, if the plaintiffs possession is not found to be prior to 23rd July 1990, the question of grant of temporary injunction has to be considered from entirely different point of view. (13). Thus, in my view the orders of the trial court which are passed primarily on its ex-parte order dt. 30.10.86 cannot be sustained. Therefore, Appeals No. 308/91 and 325/92 are allowed, the orders dt. (13). Thus, in my view the orders of the trial court which are passed primarily on its ex-parte order dt. 30.10.86 cannot be sustained. Therefore, Appeals No. 308/91 and 325/92 are allowed, the orders dt. 5.9.91 and 10.1.92 respectively are set-aside and the trial court is directed to decide the two applications afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties of placing material and hearing and decide the issues in those applications un-influenced by order dt. 30.10.86 or by the orders passed in proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. Until the applications are decided, the possession which admittedly now is with the plaintiff will continue to remain with the plaintiff. However, in case the plaintiff fails the defendant may be allowed compensation. The trial court will deckle whether defendant is entitled to any compensation for a period for which the plaintiff had remained in possession and it so as to what extent. Hearing of the suit is also expedited and the trial should be completed as far as possible within a period of one year. (14). No order as to costs.