Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The property in dispute is a plot and the petitioner is claiming his possession over the same, whereas the respondent is also claiming his possession. 2. The petitioner filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala for invoking the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and attaching the property in dispute. 3. The proceedings were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala. However, ultimately, vide order dated November 2, 1999, the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were dropped as the Civil litigation was going on between the parties. However, it was ordered that the property be handed over to Tilak Raj Gupta, i.e., the petitioner. 4. Against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajanala dated November 2, 1999, the respondent Daljit Singh filed a revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated February 15, 2000 upheld the order of dropping the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, however, set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala vide which the possession was directed to be handed over to the petitioner. 5. Now the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent are claiming to be the lessees of the Punjab Wakf Board. Both the parties are also claiming their possession over the suit property. Civil litigation is already pending between the parties before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala. 6. In view of the fact that the civil litigation is already pending, the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked. The question as to who is in possession of the plot in dispute will also be decided in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.