Judgment : This criminal revision case is preferred against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, passed under Sec.145 of the Criminal Procedure Code holding that ‘A’ party is in possession of the land regarding which it is said that there is a dispute and directing the ‘B’ party not to interfere with their possession. 2. Mr.K. Sengottian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/‘B’ party contends that admittedly there is a civil proceeding pending between these two parties with regard to the land in question and that being the case, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have passed an order under Sec.145 of the Code. It is seen from the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and from the records that both ‘A’ and ‘B’ parties have filed suits against each other in respect of the same property and curiously both have obtained injunction orders against each other. The order of injunction obtained by ‘A’ party is in O.S.No.321 of 1989, dated 17. 1989 which is marked as Ex.A-12, and the order of injunction obtained by ‘B’ party is in O.S.No. 148 of 1989, dated 23. 1989 which is marked as Ex.B-25. The Revenue Divisional Officer has noted about these injunction orders but he would say that there is no clear order as to who is in possession of the land in question and therefore he has to pass an order regarding possession. When the civil court is seized of the matter, that too when injunction orders have been passed, there cannot be a parallel proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code. The question regarding possession should have been left to be decided by the civil court in pending civil proceedings before it. 3. In this connection the learned counsel for petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 84, wherein it has been held thus: “When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that 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 a 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.” Besides, Mr.K.Sengottian, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently a receiver has been appointed by the civil court and he is now in possession of the property. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute this. Considering the circumstances, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is set aside. This criminal revision case is allowed.