JUDGMENT - PARKAR S.S., J.: This petition arises out of the proceedings adopted under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent No. 1 before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay under the circumstances which are narrated hereinafter. 2. The premises which were the subject-matter of the 145 proceedings are the shop premises being Shop No. 3, Shivnam, Mahataney Park, Aziz Baug, Chembur, Bombay. Originally the said shop premises belonged to respondent No. 1 who had sold and given possession of the said shop premises to the petitioner on 24-6-1991 for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- which was paid to respondent No. 1 on the said date. A copy of the agreement of sale is annexed at Exhibit "A" and the copy of the receipt for payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- to respondent No. 1 is annexed at Exhibit "B" to the petition. The respondent No. 1 also executed an affidavit on the same date recording therein that he had no objection for the transfer of the said shop premises in the name of the petitioner. The said affidavit was obviously made for the purpose of transfer to be effected in the name of the petitioner. There is also an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of petitioner executed by respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is annexed at Exhibit "D" to the petition. The respondent No. 1 also wrote a letter of the same date to Mahtaney Builders informing them about the sale of the said shop premises to the petitioner. By letter of 4th July, 1991 the said builder informed the petitioner that the said shop was transferred in his name. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 adopted 145 proceedings in the trial Court by making an application dated 10-7-1991 against respondent No. 2, who had, according the petitioner, absolutely no concern with the said shop premises. After the notice was issued to respondent No. 2 in the said 145 proceedings, the respondent No. 2 seems to have stated before the learned Magistrate that he was not at all concerned with the shop premises and thereafter the present petitioner was impleaded in those proceedings on 22nd July, 1991. 3. After the notice was issued to respondent No. 2 in the said 145 proceedings, the respondent No. 2 seems to have stated before the learned Magistrate that he was not at all concerned with the shop premises and thereafter the present petitioner was impleaded in those proceedings on 22nd July, 1991. 3. On 12-7-1991 the petitioner filed suit, being S.C. Suit No. 5466 of 1991, in the Bombay City Civil Court for a declaration of his rights in respect of the said shop premises and for injunction against respondent No. 1, who, according to the petitioner i.e. the plaintiff in the said suit, had visited the shop premises on 1-7-1991 along with some antisocial elements. The petitioner had also taken out Notice of Motion No. 4201 of 1991 in the said suit for interim injunction pending the suit. The ad interim injunction was granted and ultimately the said ad interim injunction came to be confirmed on 5th June, 1996, a copy whereof is produced by Mr. Baadkar for my perusal today at the time of hearing. 3-A. In the aforesaid facts, naturally and rightly the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the application of the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 21-8-1991, copy whereof is annexed at Exhibit "J" to the petition. The respondent No. 1 took the matter to the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 257 of 1991 challenging the order of the learned Magistrate. The said Revision Application was allowed by the order of the Sessions Court dated 16th July, 1992 and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law, it is this order which is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Baadkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the 145 proceedings would not lie in a matter where the Civil Court had passed order of injunction against the respondent No. 1 with regard to the shop premises. He further argued that the respondent No. 1 himself had sold the premises and the several documents, mentioned hereinabove, were executed by him with regard to the possession, sale and the transfer of the said shop premises in the name of the petitioner. 5. He further argued that the respondent No. 1 himself had sold the premises and the several documents, mentioned hereinabove, were executed by him with regard to the possession, sale and the transfer of the said shop premises in the name of the petitioner. 5. In my view, apart from the above documents executed by the respondent No. 1 the mala fide nature of the application under section 145 is also obvious from the fact that he adopted the 145 proceedings against respondent No. 2 who did not have any concern with the said shop premises. The trial Court had, therefore, in my view, rightly rejected the proceedings and the learned Sessions Judge was clearly in error in remanding the matter to the Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law. 6. It is well settled that 145 proceedings could be adopted in case there is dispute about the immovable property which is likely to cause breach of peace. The order which may be passed under section 145 is a temporary order till the dispute between the parties is resolved in the Civil Court. In this case right from the beginning i.e. within two days of filing of the application by respondent No. 1 under section 145, the petitioner had filed proceedings in the Civil Court for declaration about his possession and rights vis a vis the said shop premises. In that suit the Civil Court had passed ad interim order of injunction in favour of the petitioner against respondent No. 1. Once that situation was brought to the notice of the trial Court, the Court could not have passed any orders under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had rightly rejected the application of the respondent No. 1. 7. Mr. Baadkar appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 472, in which the Supreme Court held that when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 of the Code, would not be justified. Now in this case also, as observed earlier, the Bombay City Civil Court had passed order of injunction against the respondent No. 1. Now in this case also, as observed earlier, the Bombay City Civil Court had passed order of injunction against the respondent No. 1. The order of injunction can be passed only if the Court is satisfied that the possession is that of the plaintiff. Once the matter was being adjudicated in the Civil Court, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to enterin the proceedings under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court having rightly dropped the proceedings by rejection the application of respondent No. 1 which, in view of the aforesaid facts, appears to have been adopted mala fide, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was clearly in error when he interfered by his impugned order dated 16th July, 1992 in the revision application preferred by respondent No. 1. 8. The facts narrated above have been averred in the petition and although the petition was filed as far back as in the year 1992 and the respondent were served and represented by lawyers, no return or reply affidavit have been filed contesting the averments made in the petition. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the Judgment and order dated 16th July, 1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 257 of 1991 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay passed on 21-8-1991 in Notice No. 524/N of 1991 is restored. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the petition. Writ petition allowed. -----