Honble YADAV, J. — The instant revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 22.8.85 by means of which he had set aside pulpably illegal order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 1.8.81 releasing the property and holding one particular party in peaceful possession against the mandatory provisions contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. (2). The myopic order passed ;by the learned SDM on 1.8.81 is perse illegal and deserves to be deprecated. As a matter of course every court of law is required to act according to law enacted by the Legislature. The learned SDM who passed the impugned order on 1.8.81 has no justification whatsoever to go behind the wisdom of Legislature and deciding the controversy u/s. 145 (1) Cr.P.C. making the order absolute u/s. 145 (6) Cr.P.C. on irrelevant and extreneous consideration which is not contemplated under the statute. (3). According to the catena of judgments of appex court, once the Executive Magistrate satisfied about the apprehension of breach of peace at the time of passing the preliminary order, that preliminary order regarding apprehension of breach of pace will continue till the proceedings are finally decided within the meaning of Section 145 (6) Cr.P.C. unless it is challenged by any of the party by moving an application u/s. 145(5) Cr.P.C. that no apprehension of breach of peace exists between the parties. (4). It is well to remember that it is the apprehension of breach of peace which gives jurisdiction to an Executive Magistrate to proceed to decide the actual physical possession u/s. 145(1) Cr. P.C. and once he is satisfied about the apphension of breach of peace at the time of passing the preliminary order, he cannot revoke that order unless anyone of the parties in the proceedings moved an application u/s. 145 (5) Cr.P.C. that no apprehension of breach of peace exists. It is apparent on the face of record that no such application was moved by either of the parties that no apprehension of breach of peace exists between them. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the learned Executive Magistrate to call upon both the parties to adduce their oral statement as contemplated under amended Section 145 (1). It is apparent on the face of record that no such application was moved by either of the parties that no apprehension of breach of peace exists between them. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the learned Executive Magistrate to call upon both the parties to adduce their oral statement as contemplated under amended Section 145 (1). It is not his whim and fancy to decide the question of actual physical possession between the parties on the basis of his local inspection without giving an opportunity to test the veracity of his ex-parte local inspection by a party adversely affected by his such ex-parte local inspection report. (5). It is true that a court of law has absolute jurisdiction to made a local inspection but once a local inspection is made he is required to transfer the matter to some other Magistrate to decide the issue and afford an opportunity to the person to challenge his spot inspection. Spot inspection should be written and it is required to be made a part of record. It is true that in the instant case the ex-parte inspection made by the Executive Magistrate on 31.7.81 is made part of the record but no opportunity to file objections to this inspection report was made available to the party. Once the Executive Magistrate made a local inspection and made his report in writing on 31.7.81 then in the interest of justice he ought to have transferred the matter to some other court giving an opportunity to the party adversely affected to file an objection and if necessary to cross-examine him. But this local inspection dated 31.7.81 cannot be made basis of his judgment deciding the actual physical possession or dropping the proceedings on the ground of non- existence of apprehension of breach of peace between the parties against the mandatory provisions contained u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. (6). It is borne out from the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Jodhpur which is also supported from the order-sheets of the learned Executive Magistrate that the Executive Magistrate received the record on 17.7.1981 from this court and after receiving the record from this Court posted the case on 5.8.81 with a direction to issue notice to the parties to appear before him on the aforesaid date. (7). (7). With anguish I have to observe that the learned Executive Magistrate did not await the service of notice to both the parties but for the reasons best known to him he fixed the date for local inspection and the relevant record was placed before him on 30.7.1981 and again on 31.7.1981 and on that day he made an exparte local inspection and found the present petitioner in peaceful possession over the land in dispute. (8). On the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the learned Executive Magistrate capriciously decided the question of possession vide his order dated 1.8.81 holding that he found the present petitioner in peaceful possession over the disputed land, therefore, it was ordered that the parties are directed to maintain the status quo ante dated 31.7.81 and the non-petitioners were restrained to interfere in the peaceful possession of the present petitioner. In fact the aforesaid order will be deemed to have been passed u/s. 145(6) Cr.P.C. which is perse illegal and without jurisdiction. (9). In view of the aforesaid observations I am fully satisfied that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Jodhpur under revision is eminently just and proper and does not require the indulgence of this court. (10). Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that a civil suit is pending before the competent civil court between the parties. The aforesaid suit is pending between the parties since 1979. It is stated at the Bar that the said suit between the parties from the court of District Judge, Jodhpur was earlier transferred to Additional District Judge No.l, Jodhpur and thereafter at present is pending in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, District Jodhpur. (11). Although the paralled proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of decree of civil court the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when the possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of property during the pendency of the dispute. But the aforesaid principle is not attracted in the case, simply for the reason that the suit between the parties has not been decreed and an application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected by the subordinate court against which a misc. appeal was filed before this court and this court vide its order dated 13.7.88 directed the parties to maintain the status-quo subject to the decision of Section 145 Cr.P.C. (12). In view of the aforesaid decision of learned Single Judge of this Court I have no option except to direct the Executive Magistrate to decide the proceeding pending before him u/s. 145(1) Cr.P.C. in pursuance of the order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.l, Jodhpur on 22.8.85 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this court. It is hereby directed that the matter after remand will not be taken up by the Executive Magistrate who has passed the myopic order on 1.8.81 in order to generate a hope of impartial justice between the parties. (13). I hereby direct the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, Jodhpur to decide the suit pending between the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of my judgment. It is made clear to the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, Jodhpur that the instant suit is pending between the parties from the year 1979 for more than 15 years. Both the parties present before me gave an undertaking that they will not seek any adjournment on irrelevant and extreneous considerations and even if such adjournment is sought by any of the parties, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate is directed to refuse the adjournment and decide the case on the basis of day to day trial. Both the learned counsel present before me gave an undertaking to co- operate in the trial of the suit. (14). In the result I am fully satisfied that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Jodhpur dated 22.8.85 is eminently just and proper and does not require interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the instant revision is dismissed. (14). In the result I am fully satisfied that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Jodhpur dated 22.8.85 is eminently just and proper and does not require interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the instant revision is dismissed. However, since it is admitted at the bar that in pursuance of the illegal order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, possession has been delivered to the petitioner, therefore, in these circumstances I think it proper to direct the parties to maintain the status-quo for a period of three months over the disputed land (house) as regards possession or till the proceeding u/s. 145(6) Cr.P.C. which is not finally decided between the parties in accordance with law.