JUDGMENT : P.K. Mishra, J. - The first party in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code of Criminal Procedure") has filed this revision. 2. On the basis of a petition of the present Petitioner, a preliminary order u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure was issued on 15.11.1993 by the revenue officer cum-Executive Magistrate, Titilagarh, in C.N.C. No. 214 of 1993 in respect of Ac. 0.38 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 1460/2256 in village Chhanchhada within Saintala police station. The first party claimed that his father had purchased the disputed land by a registered sale deed dated 16.3.1974 from the father of second party No. 2 and was in possession of the disputed land. However, taking advantage of the order in Mutation Appeal No. 3/92, the second party members created disturbance in his possession foreign him to file the application before the Magistrate. The second party members while denying the allegations of the first party claimed that they are in possession. Oral evidence was adduced on behalf of both the parties and certain documents were also proved. The Magistrate found that the first party member was in possession of the disputed land and accordingly it was so declared in the final order. The criminal revision filed by second party No. 1 against the order of the Magistrate was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The said provisional order is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision. 3. Law is well-settled that a provisional Court, particularly while deciding about a dispute u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not authorized to interfere with the order of the original Court on the basis of mere re-appreciation of evidence and ordinarily the findings of fact recorded by the Court of original jurisdiction are to be respected by the provisional Court and unless there is a patent illegality in the order, the provisional Court should be slow to interfere with the order of the original Court, on a perusal of the judgment of the provisional Court, it is apparent that without keeping in view the limited jurisdiction vested in a provisional Court, the Additional Sessions Judge had proceeded to dear with the matter as if he was sitting in appeal over the order of the Magistrate. 4. 4. In his judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the final order passed by the Magistrate did not show the khata number of the disputed land and as such there was some ambiguity in the order. The final order passed by the Executive Magistrate is with reference to the preliminary order and in the preliminary order, the Khata number as well as plot number of the disputed land had been properly described. It does not appear that any of the second party members had raised any doubt regarding the identity of the land. The observation of the Additional Sessions Judge to the contrary is clearly based on error of record and unsustainable. 5. The Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the application filed by the second party members u/s 145(5), Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of the preliminary order having not been disposed of by the Magistrate, the final order of the Magistrate declaring possession of the first party was liable to be not aside. Section 145(5) enables a persons interested to prove before the Magistrate that no such dispute exist or existed and in such cases, the Magistrate is empowered to cancel his preliminary order. In the present case, the first party member was claiming possession over the disputed land which was disputed by the second party members who set up their own case of possession. Merely filing of an application u/s 145(5),s Code of Criminal Procedure was not sufficient to indicate that, in fact, there was no such dispute. The very fact that claim and counterclaim had been made relating to possession of the disputed property by the members of first party and second party, itself indicates that a dispute existed and there was hardly any scope for invoking Section 145,Code of Criminal Procedure by the provisional Court. 6. The provisional Court also observed that the dispute was purely civil in nature involving complicated questions of right, title and possession and as such the Magistrate should have referred the parties to agitate their claim regarding factum of possession in the Civil Court. The question of referring a matter to the Civil Court is contemplated in Section 146, Code of Criminal Procedure under three circumstances. The question of referring a matter to the Civil Court is contemplated in Section 146, Code of Criminal Procedure under three circumstances. If the Magistrate after making a preliminary order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, he can attach the property and refer the matter to the Civil Court. It is nobody's case that in the present case, this power was required to be exercised. Similarly, if the Magistrate finds that none of the parties was in possession on the date of the preliminary order, he can refer the matter to the Civil Court. In the present case, the Magistrate on consideration of the relevant materials on record came to the conclusion that first party was in possession and as such, there was no occasion to invoke the said clause. The third contingency is that when the Magistrate is unable to decide about the possession of either party, he can refer the matter to the Civil Court. It cannot be said that the Magistrate was unable to satisfy himself regarding possession of either party, nor can it be said that none of the parties was in possession. As such, the facile observation of the Additional Sessions Judge that the dispute being of civil nature should have been referred to the Civil Court only displays his lack of proper understanding of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is to be noted that the Magistrate while deciding the matter u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to decide about the title of the rival parties. He is only required to find out the actual possession of the parties on the date of the preliminary order." 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the provisional order of the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained which is accordingly set aside and the order of the Magistrate is confirmed. Needless to point out that such order of the Magistrate u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is always subject to any decision of the competent Court relating to rights of the parties. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed