JUDGMENT 1. 1. Both these petitions filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure code arise out of order of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Landnu dated 03.8.1992 whereby the learned Magistrate made an order with regard to possession of house in dispute relating to FIR No. 95/91, Police Station - Landnu. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the house in question is alleged to have been constructed by Ratan Lal over a plot which was purchased by Ratan Lal and his father and got it registered on 14.4.1995. The petitioners in petition No. 392/92 have further alleged that she, her husband and children have been living in the above house since 1955. Her husband Ratan Lal went to West Bengal in connection with his business and she also visited West Bengal but they frequently visited Landnu and reside in the above house. Before some years Ratan Lal died and she had to go to West Bengal in order to help her children to carry out business left by Ratan Lal. Her personal assets were lying in the said house. In her absence, non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely, Smt. Narbai Devi and Smt. Saraswati Devi and others trespassed into the house and wanted to show their possession. When she came to know about this incident, she immediately rushed to Landnu and lodged the above FIR. 3. On receipt of this information, the Police registered a case after investigation a challan was filed in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Landnu against non petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. When the matter for disposal of this house during the pendency of the case came up before learned Magistrate by order dated 3.8.1992 learned Magistrate thought it fit to keep the house in custody of the Court. He declined to deliver interim possession of the house to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have filed this petition and claimed that she has got material documents to prove that immediately before the occurrence or even at the time of alleged occurrence, she and her children were in possession of the said house. The learned Magistrate erred in declining to deliver possession of the said house to her and did not appreciate the probative value of the documents produced by her in support of her claim. 5. The learned Magistrate erred in declining to deliver possession of the said house to her and did not appreciate the probative value of the documents produced by her in support of her claim. 5. The petitioners in Case No. 396/92 also felt aggrieved as possession of the said house during trial was also denied to them. They have claimed that they have got a better right to possession of the said house during trial. Learned Magistrate did not appreciate their valid claim. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. It may be stated that Under Section 451, Civil Procedure Code Court is expected to pass necessary order for the proper custody of the property pending conclusion of the trial. Where property involved is a house, only question of possession of the property at the time case started is relevant. Hence learned Magistrate was expected to pass order Under Section 451 with regard to above house according to law. A perusal of the impugned order shows that learned Magistrate was of the opinion that in case interim possession of the house was delivered to either of the parties, it may affect the merits of the case and prejudice the trial. Obviously, the impression of learned Magistrate is erroneous. Under section 451 only an interim order is passed for the safe custody and preservation of the property involved. It does not decide the rights of the parties qua the property. Hence, he was not correct in declining to order delivery of interim possession of the house to any of the parties if he found it desirable to order possession in favour of any of the parties on the ground that in case it was done, so the trial or merits of the case might get prejudiced. It further appears that learned Magistrate was not inclined to order interim possession of the house in question to any of the parties. He did not make any efforts to ascertain from the documents or evidence available and decide the matter one way or the other. The order was, therefore, incomplete and non-speaking. Learned Magistrate has not approached the matter in a legal manner. 7. He did not make any efforts to ascertain from the documents or evidence available and decide the matter one way or the other. The order was, therefore, incomplete and non-speaking. Learned Magistrate has not approached the matter in a legal manner. 7. I, therefore, remand the matter to learned Magistrate with a direction to consider the evidence produced by both the parties and decide the matter of interim possession of the house in question according to provisions of Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code. It may be stated that even if interim possession of the house is delivered to any of the parties, the trial will not be affected in any manner. It will be only for the purpose of preserving the house in safe custody.The parties are directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 22nd April, 1996. The parties may produce further evidence and the learned Magistrate shall decide the matter as directed above.Both the misc. petitions stand disposed of.Case remanded. *******