Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") preferred by the petitioner Bishwanath Singh against the State of Bihar and five others including opposite party No. 2, Amitav Singh against the impugned order dated 17.9.1996 recorded by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad by which a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code (Case No. 1112 of 1996) was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code, further directing the parties to file their written statement. 2. From perusal of the record it will appear that earlier notices were ordered to be issued while the case was at the admission stage but this case was admitted for hearing by order dated 29.8.1997 with a direction to issue notices to opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 for which processes were ordered to be filed within one week failing which, as against them, this application was to stand dismissed without reference to bench. No notice was issued to opposite party No. 2, since he had appeared in the case by then. It appears that the aforesaid direction was not complied by the petitioner and by virtue of the aforesaid order, this application stood dismissed against opposite party Nos. 3 to 6, who were arrayed as opposite parties being the third party in the lower Court. 3. Opposite Party No. 2, Amitav Singh, was the first party in the lower Court on whose application a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code as initiated which was originally filed against Bishwanath Singh, the present petitioner. However, it will appear that present opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 appeared in the lower Court and made a prayer to be included as third party, which was allowed by the learned lower Court by order dated 22.7.1996 also finding that they may also might have claimed over the same land. Therefore, in the proceeding, in the lower Court, Amitav Singh was the first party and the present petitioner as well present opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 were arrayed as opposite parties opposing to Amitav Singh. 4. Therefore, in the proceeding, in the lower Court, Amitav Singh was the first party and the present petitioner as well present opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 were arrayed as opposite parties opposing to Amitav Singh. 4. In course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that opposite party No. 2 claimed through his mother Bimla Devi, who along with the petitioner was party in title suit No. 77 of 1988, pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Aurangabad which, as submitted, is still pending. 5. The argument was that since for the same property a title suit was pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction, the proceeding before Executive Court could not proceed with regard to the same property for which learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance in a decision of this Court reported in 1995 (2) BLJ 450 , and of the Apex Court reported in 1985 BBCJ 37. However, so far this petition is concerned, the same stands dismissed against opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 who were third party in the lower Court for all practical and legal purposes. That being so, even if the substance is found in the claim of the petitioner Bishwanath Singh, who was opposite party No. 2, in the proceeding in the lower Court, I am afraid no relief can be granted to him on the same fact, the application having been dismissed as against opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 who also had made claims in the land. 6. This being so, this application is dismissed. However, since a law point has been placed the petitioner would be free to raise the same point before the learned lower Court, which, if so raised, would be decided in accordance with law.