JUDGMENT This petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the lower revisional Court in relation to the proceedings u/S. 145 Cr.P.C., which were initiated by the petitioner against the respondents arid were pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ganj Basoda. In those proceedings, the learned S.D.M. had attached the disputed property and had appointed a Receiver. The Receiver had continued with the possession of the disputed property. The order of the learned S.D.M., Ganj Basoda, was challenged by the respondents before. the lower revisional Court, and the lower revisional Court while describing the facts in paragraph 8 of the order itself found that the husband of the petitioner, named, Daryav, had filed a civil suit against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Ganj Basoda, and therefore, the two parallel proceedings for the same subject matter could not be permitted to be continued with. The petitioner's case has been that she had purchased a kachha house, i.e., the disputed property from respondent No. 1 Harnam Singh under a sale-deed dated 20.5.72 and from Mehtab Singh on 7th January, 1973. Respondents 2and 4 are the heirs of Mehtab Singh, who died during the pendency of the proceedings. Respondent No. 3 is the wife of respondent No. 1 Harnam Singh. The petitioner had staked claim on the disputed property under the abovesaid two sale-deeds, and the proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated by her under her own rights, independent of her husband Daryav. Therefore, the two proceedings not being between the same parties, the view taken by the learned lower revisional Court, that the two parallel proceedings between the same parties could not be permitted to be continued, is apparently wrong on the facts of the case narrated by the Court itself. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from perversity and also from the lack of jurisdiction, and therefore, could not be allowed to stand. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the lower revisional Court dated 4.3.92 is set aside and that of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is restored. The record of the learned S.D.M. Court has not been received in this Court. The petitioner shall, however, be free to file a copy of this order before the learned S.D.M. who would conclude the enquiry according to the law.