Honble MADAN, J. – The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that he has been in continuous possession of the land in dispute and when his right are still to be determined by the Civil Court, the learned S.D.M. has passed an order dated 3.9.94 by attaching the property by having resort to the provisions of section 146(1) Cr.P.C.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 3.9.94 is not in accordance with law in as much as resort to section 145 Cr.P.C. should be made very sparingly and attachment should not have been ordered as so done by the learned Magistrate under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. particularly when there were no circumstances justifying the attachment of the property in question. (2). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate to pass an order U/S 145 Cr.P.C. if on the basis of thematerial on the record he is of the opinion and if he is satisfied on the merits of the complaint that the dispute is likely to cause breach of peace within his local jurisdiction. Under such circumstances the Magis- trate would be perfectly justified in passing the order under the said provision. It is not open to the Magistrate to determine the merits or the claim of the respective parties regarding title etc. which is for the Civil Court to decide except the question of possession. Under Sec. 146 of the Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate at any time after having made the earlier order under sub section (1) of Sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. considers the case to be one of emergency or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such situation, as is referred to in Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was in possession of the property in dispute he may attach the subject of the dispute until the competent Court determine the rights of the parties therein with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. It is within the province of the Magistrate to with draw the attachment order at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of the breach of peace with regard to the subject matter of the dispute. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evidently implies that it is for the competent Court to determine the rights of the parties where the civil litigation is pending and I am informed that the peti- tioner has already availed the remedy of filing Civil suit of declaration and permanent injunction which is pending in the Civil Court. I am further informed that the Civil Court has not passed any interim order in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff by restraining the defendants from interfering with the property in question. Neither any order has been shown for perusal of this court to that effect. I am further of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused by attachment of the property at this stage particularly when the decision of the Civil Court is still awaited where the suit is pending and it is always open to the petitioner to move to the Magistrate concerned for withdrawal of the attachment order if circumstances justify to that effect. (3). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents on the record I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference of this court. consequently the petition is accordingly dismissed.