Judgment :- ‘A’ party in M.C.No. 182 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, have filed this petition under Scc.4S2 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. Short facts are: The Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur had issued notice to ‘A’ party under Sec. 145(1) of Criminal Prodcedure Code. That order reads as follows: “Whereas it has been made to appear to me from the reports of Inspector of Police, Tiruppur (South). The Tahsildar, Tiruppur and other sources such as the representations of the disputing parties and on the grounds duly recorded that a dispute likely to induce a breach of peace exists between “A” party, Thiru Palaniswamy Gounder and two others and “B” party, Thiru Ahmed and three others concerning the possession of the landed property of an extern of 5.28 acres in S.No. 128/1 of Tiruppur village, Tiruppur Taluk which is situated in my local jurisdiction. Hence I order both the panics to appear before me on 11. 1993 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur and file and put up their respective claims as to the effect of actual possession of the above mentioned properly”. To quash the same, “A”parly has come forward with this petition. 3. Mr.R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned notice issued under Sec. 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code does not disclose the grounds on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate had arrived at this conclusion that a dispute likely to induce the breach of peace exists and in view of that infirmity, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there are pending civil proceedings between the parlies and while so, the proceedings cannot be initiated under Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. I have heard Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior Counsel and the learned Government Advocate Mr.Somasundaram and I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and the Government Advocate. 1 shall first consider the first submission made by Mr.R.Gandhi. 4. I have heard Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior Counsel and the learned Government Advocate Mr.Somasundaram and I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and the Government Advocate. 1 shall first consider the first submission made by Mr.R.Gandhi. To consider that submission, I have referred to the relevant portion under Sec. 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as follows: “Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned to such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified data and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual of the subject of dispute”. [Emphasis supplied] In the instant case, regarding the grounds of satis-faction, the relevant portion in the impugned order reads as follows: “......on the grounds duty recorded..” Beyond that, the impugned order docs not state the grounds of his satisfaction. Thus, one of the essential elements required to sustain an order under Sec.l45(1), Criminal Procedure Code is lucking in this case. On that ground, this order is liable to be quashed. 5. Regarding the second submission, certain facts need be stated. ‘A’ party had filed a suit in O.S.No. 123 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur against ‘B’ party for declaration of title and injunction. That suit was dismissed. So, ‘A’ party took up the matter in appeal to this Court in A.S.No. 90 of 1992. In that appeal, ‘A’ party had filed a petition in C.M.P.No. 2130 of 1992 for injunction and it was dismissed. While so, ‘B’ parly had filed a suit in O.S.No. 208 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur for injunction and had also filed I.A.No. 641 of 1990 praying for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit and the interim injunction was granted. From the above, it will be seen that no binding final order has been passed in the dispute between the parlies in the civil litigation. In the circumstances, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr.R. Gandhi. From the above, it will be seen that no binding final order has been passed in the dispute between the parlies in the civil litigation. In the circumstances, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr.R. Gandhi. In Nagarathinam v. Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, 1992 M.L.J. (Crl.) 498, I have held thai mere pendency of a civil litigation cannot be a bar for initiation of proceedings under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the above, 1 am unable to accept the second submission made by Mr. R. Gandhi. 6. Since submision No. 1 is accepted, it follows that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings in M.C.No. 182 of 1993 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur. shall stand quashed.