JUDGMENT P.K. Deb, J. This writ application has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ against the respondents in not interfering by way of revision etc. against the directives given by this Court in a previous Cr. W.J.C. No. 66 of 1991 (R) disposed of on 26.5.1992 with the direction as contained in the said order, which has been contained in Annexure-1 of the writ application. 2. For appreciating the submissions of both the parties, facts are necessary to be reiterated, which run as follows : The valuable property situated in plot no. 7048 near Jhanda Chowk at Hazaribagh was originally owned admittedly by one Saraswati Devi and she entered into an agreement of sale of such property to one Shahjada Tanbir. But, when she failed to execute the sale deed in favour of Shahjada Tanbir in terms of the agreement arrived at, a suit for specific performance was filed by the said Shahjada Tanbir in T.S. No. 128 of 1988 before the court of Munsif at Hazaribagh. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Shahjada Tanbir. In execution proceeding, when the defendant Sarawsati Devi failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff decree holder of that suit, the court executed the sale deed and on the basis of the same, delivery of possession was given through court process to the plaintiff- decree holder, Shahjada Tanbir on 22.8.1990. It is stated that the said decree holder Shahjada Tanbir, after taking possession over the suit property sold the entire property in favour of the present petitioner Gulam Subhani, by a registered deed on 14.12.1990. i.e. just after about three months of his taking delivery of possession through court and that the petitioner was put in actual and physical possession over the suit property. 3. In the meantime, one Shashi Bhushan Mishra and others filed a suit being Title Suit No. 156 of 1990 for setting aside the decree in Title Suit No. 128 of 1988 against the vendor of the petitioner and others and claimed• the property to be in their exclusive possession and title. But, on a petition filed by the respondent no. In the meantime, one Shashi Bhushan Mishra and others filed a suit being Title Suit No. 156 of 1990 for setting aside the decree in Title Suit No. 128 of 1988 against the vendor of the petitioner and others and claimed• the property to be in their exclusive possession and title. But, on a petition filed by the respondent no. 2 Khurshid Ahsan Khan claiming himself to be in possession of a part of the suit building on rental basis from tile original owner Saraswati Devi before the police for preventing the petitioner to go inside the premises. The Police in the process recommended for a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. and locked the said premise. M.P. Case No. 128 of 1991 was initiated under Section 107 Cr. P.C. Against such initiation of proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C., this petitioner came up before this Court with an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding and for a direction to hand over the key in favour of the petitioner. The said application was ultimately converted into a writ under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, and was registered as Cr. W.J.C. No. 66 of 1991 (R). That was vehemently contested by the respondents of this petition and vide judgment dated 26.5.1992, the said writ was disposed of by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chy. S.N. Mishra by giving a specific direction to the S.D.M. (Executive) Hazaribagh in the following manner: "I direct the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, to hold a fresh enquiry as to who was in physical possession on the date the premises was locked by the police and only after taking into consideration all the oral and documentary evidence that may be adduced before him and after affording adequate opportunity to the parties of being heard in the matter, the learned Magistrate shall conclude his findings with regard to the possession of the concerned person/party. The opening of lock and handing over possession of the respective premises to the eligible party/rightful person will depend upon and shall be subject to the findings arrived at by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, on conclusion of the enquiry to be held personally by him." 4. The opening of lock and handing over possession of the respective premises to the eligible party/rightful person will depend upon and shall be subject to the findings arrived at by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, on conclusion of the enquiry to be held personally by him." 4. On the basis of the directions being given in the said writ as mentioned above, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh held an enquiry and after hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents (emphasis supplied) prepared a report in details on 23.3.1993 holding that the petitioner was in possession on the date of Lock i.e. 17.1.91 and asked the Officer-incharge, Sadar Police Station to hand over the key of the premises to the petitioner. That report has been contained in Annexure-2. Against that report/order, the respondents preferred the revision petition under Section 397 Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, who entertained the same by registering Cr. Revision no. 82 of 1993 and passed stay order regarding handing over of key to the petitioner. Against such finding of the revision application, the present writ application was preferred before this Hon'ble Court again. During the course of the hearing of the stay vacating matter, a Division Bench of this High Court vide order dated 2.12.1993 directed the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh to take the revision application in his file and shall also consider the question of maintainability of the revision application and it was observed that this writ application shall be heard after the disposal of the revision petition for appropriate order. 5. On the basis of such direction, vide order dated 10.1.1994, the learned Sessions Judge disposed of the above criminal revision application holding that the same was maintainable under Section 397/399 Cr. P.C. and set aside the impugned order/report of the S.D.M. (Executive), Hazaribagh and remanded the matter to the S.D.M. (Executive) again directing him to make a fresh enquiry and also gave some guidelines as to how the enquiry should be proceeded on. 6. The only question i.e. to be considered in this writ application is regarding the legal position/status of the impugned order/report of the S.D.M. (Executive) as was done in pursuance of the directions given by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The only question i.e. to be considered in this writ application is regarding the legal position/status of the impugned order/report of the S.D.M. (Executive) as was done in pursuance of the directions given by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is to be considered whether the report/order as mentioned above of the S.D.M. (Executive) was a revisable one under the Code of Criminal Procedure or not. 7. Before entering into the legality of the order of Sessions Judge or that of the S.D.M. (Executive), some more facts are necessary to be looked into for arriving at a just decision in the matter in question. The respondents no. 2 and 3 were not originally parties to the previous writ application filed by the petitioner, namely, Cr. W.J.C. No. 66 of 1991 (R). They introduced themselves in that writ application by filing intervenor petition which were accordingly allowed. The respondent no. 2 Khurshid Ahsan Khan raised the plea that he was in occupation of the premises in question in the first floor, running a business of beautification and hair dressor in the name and style of 'Make-Up' under the original owner; while the respondent no. 3, Sanjay Rakshit took the plea that the original owner Sarswati Devi was running a business of hotel in the name and style of 'Monika Hotel' in the ground floor of the premises and when she failed to run the same properly, she made an agreement with the respondent no. 3 to run the said hotel as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 400/- per month. That agreement was alleged to be entered on 5.9.1990 which is definitely during the continuance of Title Suit No. 128 of 1988 pending between Shahjada Tanbir and Saraswati Devi. 8. The decree granted in favour of Shahjada Tanbir in the above mentioned suit and delivery of possession in his favour vide its execution proceedings was challenged by Sashi Bhushan Mishra and others in Title Suit No. 156 of 1990, which is still pending. Admittedly, this respondent no. 3 and 4 were not the parties to the previous title suit. Status quo order has been passed in the subsequent title suit no. 156 of 1990 regarding the question of possession over the suit premises. 9. Admittedly, this respondent no. 3 and 4 were not the parties to the previous title suit. Status quo order has been passed in the subsequent title suit no. 156 of 1990 regarding the question of possession over the suit premises. 9. It has been stated by the petitioner that in the subsequent Title Suit, the plaintiffs, who challenged the previous decree have admitted that the delivery of possession had got effected in favour of the vendor of the petitioner Shahjada Tanbir in the execution proceeding of the earlier suit. It has further been stated that while the petitioner, after the purchase from the decree holder, was, going to exercise his possession then one Hakim Khan raised objection and filed a petition before the S.D.M. (Executive) Hazaribagh on the basis of which a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P C. was started and during that period this locking was done in the premises by the police, perhaps• with the apprehension of breach of peace. 10. From such facts and circumstances, it is clear that the actual physical possession and the facts regarding delivery of possession on the basis of a decree in favour of the vendor of the petitioner are still in question and the same is subjudice in the civil court. There is no scope for this Hon'ble Court to enter into any controversial point in its writ jurisdiction. It seems that in the previous writ, this Court made an observation while disposing of the same only with regard to the delivery of possession of the key to the owner who was in possession on the date of locking that is of 17.1.1991 and for such ascertainment of fact S.D.M. (Executive) was asked to make an enquiry in that respect. It should also be mentioned here that during the continuance of the previous writ application, by an order of this Court S.D.M. (Executive) was asked to make an enquiry regarding physical possession of the premises on the date of locking, but the S.D.M. (Executive) without doing the enquiry himself delegated the same to another Executive Magistrate, who submitted a report, but the same report was not accepted as it was not in compliance of the direction of this Hon'ble Court. It has also been mentioned that controvercial point regarding the actual physical possession or delivery of possession through court and then subsequent possession of the petitioner from the decree holder Shahjada Tanbir on the basis of a sale deed are not the points to be decided in the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the same is totally a subjudice one when the subsequent Title Suit is pending before a civil court raising all those points. 11. The enquiry made by the direction of this Court in the earlier writ application by the S.D.M. (Executive) is now only the subject matter of this writ application inasmuch as whether the same enquiry report/order is subject to revision by the Sessions Judge or not vis-a-vis whether the enquiry made by the S.D.M. (Executive) was covered under the procedure of Code of Criminal Procedure or the same was done under the executive authority of the S.D.M. Hazaribagh. 12. It has been strenuously argued for and on behalf of the petitioner that while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, any direction made by this Court can never be a subject matter of revision by any other subordinate court by assumption of jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the enquiry as ordered by this Court to be done by a Magistrate is always within the coverage of Criminal Procedure Code as from the implication of the order, it can be well understood that the enquiry was said to be done by a Magistrate definitely with the very purpose of doing the same legally which can attract only the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. 13. Learned counsel has urged that the said enquiry, even under the direction of this Court can only be done by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh within the four corners of the Criminal Procedure Code and not by any other capacity. 14. The State of Bihar has also submitted a counter affidavit in this case, wherein it has been stated specifically that enquiry as ordered by this Court in the previous writ application was clone under the executive and administrative capacity of the S. D. M. of Hazaribagh and it was never by any other provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. 15. 14. The State of Bihar has also submitted a counter affidavit in this case, wherein it has been stated specifically that enquiry as ordered by this Court in the previous writ application was clone under the executive and administrative capacity of the S. D. M. of Hazaribagh and it was never by any other provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. 15. To appreciate the rival submissions, it is very much necessary to see first of all as to the intention of this Court while disposing the previous writ and the directions given thereof. The specific direction given by this Court in the previous writ has already been reproduced in verbetum in paragraph-3. Subsequent observations in the previous writ is also necessary to be scrutinised to find out the intention of this Court in giving the above directions. In the last paragraph i.e. paragraph-18 of the previous writ, it was observed in the following manner: "It is made clear that any finding and/or observation casually made in this judgment will not, however, prejudice any of the parties in the proceedings either before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate or in the suit pending in the civil court." This shows the concern of this Court regarding the subject of dispute which was clearly subjudice before a civil court. Sub-divisional Magistrate was asked by his capacity to hold an enquiry for and on behalf of this Court for the purpose of delivery of key to the proper person who was in possession of the premises at the time of locking. 16. Mr. Laik appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the entertainment of revision petition against the report/order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate (Executive) Hazaribagh by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revisions mentioned above, on the ground that the order of compliance of the High Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 66 of 1991 (R) by the S.D.M. (Executive) can never be questioned in any subordinate court than the High Court, as the authority was given by the High Court to the S.D.M. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as such any subordinate court to that of the High Court entertaining/exercising revisional jurisdiction on the order/repot1 of the S.D.M. (Executive) would amount to sitting of a subordinate court over the High Court decision. Next submission is to the effect that whatever the S.D.M. (Executive) had done as per direction of the High Court, was done in his administrative capacity as an Executive authority and not under enquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code. He has criticised the observations made by the Sessions Judge in the Revisional judgment regarding the maintainability of the revision petition. 17. It should be mentioned here that in the whole of the judgment on revision petition, the Sessions Judge remained silent as to under which provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, S.D.M. had done enquiry in passing the impugned order, but he held that the Sessions Judge having revisional jurisdiction has got superintendence on the orders passed by S.D.M. (Executive), which according to him was dune under the Code of Criminal Procedure and in no other capacity. 18. On the other hand, Mr. B.Y. Kishore submitted that S.D.M. (Executive) has got no scope for any inquiry unless he is guided within the four corners of the Criminal Procedure Code and if the same has been done even if on the direction of High Court, the same is revisable one. He has further stated that this inquiry was done under Section 457 Cr. P C. and the finality of the order being not appeal-able is revisable under Section 397 /399 Cr. P C. 19. Let us approach the matter from the negative side, as is contended by Mr. B.Y. Kishore, and let us examine whether that impugned order of S.D.M. (Executive) is under the provisions of Section 457 Cr. P C. or not. Section 457 Cr. P C. gives jurisdiction to a Magistrate under the provisions of Cr. P C. When there is reporting of seizure of property before him and that the property was not produced before the criminal court during an enquiry or trial and in that circumstances, the Magistrate make such order as he thinks fit in respect of such property. 20. Here, in the present case, no property has been seized, only a key was taken by the police to avoid breach of peace when there was some dispute regarding possession of the property for which civil court had already been moved. Whether Section 457 Cr. 20. Here, in the present case, no property has been seized, only a key was taken by the police to avoid breach of peace when there was some dispute regarding possession of the property for which civil court had already been moved. Whether Section 457 Cr. P C. refers to an Executive Magistrate also shall have to be considered in the light of interpretation of the word 'Magistrate' appeared in Section as 3 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held by Kerala High Court in a Full Bench decision, as reported in AIR 1980, 18, that when no specific mention is there regarding the 'Magistrate', the functions which the Magistrate has to exercise should be construed as to whether Magistrate should be an Executive or a Judicial Magistrate one. By interpretation of Section 3 (4), the word Magistrate appearing in Section 457 Cr. P C., it definitely relates to Judicial Magistrate and not the Executive one. 21. In the present case, the S.D.M. has been asked to make enquiry by taking all oral and documentary evidence as to the finding of fact regarding the actual physical possession on the date of locking of the property by the Police. Definitely, if the intention of this Court was to solve the matter by the Judicial process, then this High Court could have asked the same enquiry to be done by a Judicial Magistrate as per provisions of Section 457 Cr. P C. but that has not been done. From the concluding paragraph of the previous writ judgment, it is clear that the High Court only wanted to have the matter solved by a formal inquiry through an Executive Officer and as such the S.D.M. (Executive) was chosen for that purpose as this Court was very much aware of the position that the dispute is subjudice. The decision submitted by Mr. Kishore of a Calcutta High Court reported in 1992 Calcutta Law Times, 318 is not at all applicable, although, it may be for the purpose of disposal of the property, it might include both the immoveable and moveable properties. It should always be borne in mind that S.D.M. (Executive) got the authority of enquiry only by the direction of the High Court and not through by any other agency as contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. 22. It should always be borne in mind that S.D.M. (Executive) got the authority of enquiry only by the direction of the High Court and not through by any other agency as contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. 22. The learned Sessions Judge made an error in his impugned revisional judgment, to the effect that two 107 Cr. P. C. proceedings were pending when the lock was done and as such the executive authority under Chapter X had the jurisdiction to decide the point as to whom the key is to be handed over even on the direction of the High Court within the four corners of Cr. P C. and hence the same is revisable. Both the 107 Cr. P.C. proceedings were amalgamated later on and have been disposed of long before the impugned order was passed. Hence, it cannot be said that the order was passed during the continuance of the proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P C. and hence the order being - under Chapter-X of the Cr. P C. is revisable. But, the whole thing has been wrongly approached. 23. In disposing of the previous writ application, this High Court did not want to make the matter open for further enquiry under any procedure as the matter has already become subjudice before the civil court. So very cautiously only for the purpose of handing over of key to a rightful person, this inquiry was asked to be done by the Executive Officer, having much responsibility. If any illegality or impropriety has been committed by the S.D.M. (Executive) in not complying the directions of this Court then the same could have been challenged or the same could have been brought to the notice of this High Court, but the same cannot be made open to any revisional authority before a subordinate court of this High Court. Thus entertaining of a revision petition against the order/report of the S.D.M. (Executive) Hazaribagh is definitely illegal and hence not maintainable. The order passed by the revisional court, namely, Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has got no legal force. 24. Next submissions have been made by the learned counsel of the parties, to the effect that when there is a decree by the civil court and delivery of possession consequent to the decree, it is not open to a Criminal court to question the same and to consider its validity or otherwise. 25. 24. Next submissions have been made by the learned counsel of the parties, to the effect that when there is a decree by the civil court and delivery of possession consequent to the decree, it is not open to a Criminal court to question the same and to consider its validity or otherwise. 25. In this connection, Mr. Laik submitted a catena of rulings, but I do not want to refer them as the matter is not a subject to be discussed in this writ jurisdiction. The report/ order of the S.D.M. (Executive) has not been challenged before this High Court. 26. Mr. Kishore's submission of justifying the guideline given by the Sessions Judge in disposing the matter as per direction of the High Court by the S.D.M. (Executive) is not required to be looked into, as the whole order of the Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction. 27. In the result, the petition is allowed and the entertainment of Cr. Revision No. 82/93 by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh and a subsequent revisional judgment and order are held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.