Order.- This is a reference under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made by the learned Sessions Judge at Bidar recommending that the order of the learned Munsiff-Magistrate at Bidar dated the 20th of July, 1962, may be set aside. The two members of the first party started proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Bidar, alleging that survey number 48 of Surahalli village, Aurad taluk, is in joint possession of themselves and the second party and that the second party with the help ofvillage police patel and police is going to dispossess them by show of force and illegal means. Therefore, there is every likelihood of the parties coming to blows resulting in a breach of peace and endangering the life and property of the first party. The learned Magistrate having been satisfied that there was likelihood of breach of peace, attached the land in dispute, and ordered possession of the land to be handed over to the bailiff. He then issued notices to both the parties to appear before him and file their written statements, documents and affidavits by 26th of June, 1962. Both the parties filed their written statements and produced a number of affidavits. One of the contentions raised by the second party was that it had obtained a decree against the father of the first member of the first party and others. By that decree it obtained a declaration of title to the property and an injunction against the defendants therein restraining them, from disturbing its possession This was of the year 1356 Fasli, i.e., in about the year 1946-47. The learned Magistrate after perusing the written statements and the affidavits produced by the parties and other documents and the authorities cited before him, found himself unable to determine as to which party was in exclusive possession of the suit land. He therefore acting under sub-section (1) of section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, attached the land and directed both the parties to approach the civil Court for a decision as to possession. The second party being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bidar. He therefore acting under sub-section (1) of section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, attached the land and directed both the parties to approach the civil Court for a decision as to possession. The second party being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bidar. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was wrong on the part of the learned Magistrate to hold that he was unable to determine as to which party was in possession of the suit land. He also noted that the order of the learned Magistrate is not in conformity with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He therefore has made this reference recommending that the order of the learned Magistrate may be set aside. The learned Government Pleader, while not supporting the reference has asked this Court to rectify the irregularity in the order of the learned Magistrate. Mr. Manohar Rao Jagirdar appearing for the second party has sought to support this reference. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in support of his reference are: Since the second party had obtained a decree in the year 1946 or 1947 in its favour as to the possession and also an injunction against the father of the first member of the first party and others restraining them from disturbing its possession, it is prima facie clear that the second party must be deemed to be in possession of the suit land and, unless the members of the first part have either alleged or shown that subsequent to the decree they have obtained possession from the second party, the learned Magistrate ought to have held on the strength of the decree that the second party was in possession of the suit land. Therefore, he states, that the Magistrate was in error in holding that he was unable to determine as to which of the parties was in possession of the suit land. In support of his reasoning, he has relied upon a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ligangouda v. Basangouda1. To my mind that decision has no application to the facts of this case. In support of his reasoning, he has relied upon a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ligangouda v. Basangouda1. To my mind that decision has no application to the facts of this case. That was a decision showing under what circumstance “Explanation 6 to section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code” can be invoked, and, therefore, it is difficult to see how that decision can be pressed into service in support of the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has then referred to some other decisions. He has also noted a decision of this Court in Imambu v. Hussenbi2. In his opinion, the Magistrate is wrong in disregarding the decision of a Civil Court of the year 1356 Fasli, wherein the possession of the 2nd party was held proved. In such circumstances he states that it must be proved by the party against whom that decision has gone, as to how or by what means he got possession of the land. In other words, he must prove the source of his possession and unless that is done, the Magistrate is bound to hold that the person in whose favour there is a decision of a Civil Court, though not recent, is in possession of the property. In my opinion, the reasons given by the learned Judge for his conclusion cannot be accepted. This Court has pointed out, as noted by the learned Sessions Judge himself, in the case in Imambu v. Husseinbi2, that the Magistrate should respect the recent decision of a Civil Court as to the possession of the subject in dispute. It is only such decision that the Magistrate is bound to respect. What is the meaning to be given to the expression “recent”? The dictionary meaning of the word “recent” is: “Not long past, that happened or existed lately, late; not long established, lately begun, modern” (as given in Concise Oxford Dictionary, 4th Edition). Therefore, the decision of the Civil Court must not be of “long past”. And certainly a decision of the year 1946 regarding possession cannot be. said to be a recent one and not of long past in the year 1962. The learned Sessions Judge was not quite right in stating that the learned Magistrate ought to have held that the 2nd party was in possession on the strength of the decision of the year 1946. said to be a recent one and not of long past in the year 1962. The learned Sessions Judge was not quite right in stating that the learned Magistrate ought to have held that the 2nd party was in possession on the strength of the decision of the year 1946. Such a conclusion would lead to unforeseen results, e.g., suppose after the year 1946, in spite of the decision and order the 2nd party was dispossessed and it was out of possession for more than 12 years; and the party dispossessing after a period of 12 years commences proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a declaration that it is entitled to be in possession of the land in dispute and to forbid the other party from disturbing its possession, as otherwise there is likelihood of a breach of peace. Could it be said that in spite of the alleged long possession of more than 12 years the Magistrate is bound to hold in pursuance of the Civil Court’s decision that the 2nd party was in possession? It should be noted that in respect of an old decision there is ample room for possibilities of subsequent disturbances of the state of things found and pronounced to have been once existing. The learned Sessions Judge has then in support of his conclusion, relied upon a decision of their Lordships of the High Court of Assam, Holiram v. Ramashwar1. In that case also, the Court had to deal with a decision of a Civil Court which was of the year 1936 and the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were instituted in the year 1953. It was held in that case that after delivery of possession in pursuance of the decree of the Civil Court, the party asserting possession had to show the sources of possession and in its absence the Magistrate was wrong in attaching the subject of dispute in spite of a decree of the Civil Court holding possession in favour of the other party. With great respect to their Lordships of the Assam High Court, I find myself unable to subscribe to that view. Under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate has to determine the fact of actual possession of the subject in dispute and not that a particular party was in possession some years before. With great respect to their Lordships of the Assam High Court, I find myself unable to subscribe to that view. Under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate has to determine the fact of actual possession of the subject in dispute and not that a particular party was in possession some years before. In my opinion, the view taken by this Court is, with respect, in conformity with the provisions of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in support of his reference cannot be accepted. The learned Sessions Judge has also mentioned in his order of reference that the learned Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 146, Criminal Procedure Code. From the order of the learned Magistrate it could be seen that what he has done is to attach the subject in dispute and direct both the parties to approach the Civil Court for a decision regarding possession of the land. What is required by sub-section (1) of section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, is, that if the Magistrate is of opinion that he is unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute, then what he has got to do is, firstly, to attach the subject of dispute; secondly, he has got to draw up a statement of the facts of the case and forward the record of the proceedings to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute at the date of the order as explained in sub-section (4) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and thirdly, he has to direct the parties to appear before a Civil Court on a date to be fixed by it. Thus, there is some irregularity in the form of the order but for that reason alone his decision cannot be said to be bad. For the reasons stated above, this reference is rejected, and while confirming the decision of the learned Magistrate, I direct him to pass an order in conformity with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. S.V.S. ----- Reference rejected.