JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Jeypore in M.C. No. 34 of 2008 declining to initiate a proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the Petitioner/Ist parry is that the opposite parties/2nd party members are making further construction on the case land to the annoyance of the Ist party and her family members by showing influence and man power. As such the Ist. Party and her supporters have got ready to prevent the 2nd party members and their labourers from making further construction in the case land. The 2nd party members along with their supporters and labourers have got to measure their strength with the Ist party and her supporters and as such there is imminent and reasonable apprehension of fighting and blood-shed, which will result in breach of public peace and tranquillity in the locality. With the aforesaid allegations, the Petitioner filed a petition u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of Sub-Collector, Jeypore against the opposite party/2nd party members praying to restrain them from making any further construction on the case land. The Executive Magistrate, however, rejected the said petition on the ground that Civil Suit No. 53 of 2008 was pending between the parties for the self-same land and a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 in I.A. No. 22 of 2008 was also pending in the Civil court. The Executive Magistrate directed the Petitioner/Ist party to agitate her grievance in the civil court. 3. Mr. J.R. Dash, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure and proceeding in the civil court are placed on different footing. Pendency of a civil proceeding is not a bar for initiation of a proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure In the instant case, the Executive Magistrate illegally dropped the proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure in which the only consideration is whether apprehension of breach of peace exists or not. In the impugned order itself, it has been reflected that apprehension of breach of peace was there. At the same time the Executive Magistrate dropped the proceeding on the ground of the civil court being in seisin of the matter, which is illegal. In the meantime two months have expired. In the impugned order itself, it has been reflected that apprehension of breach of peace was there. At the same time the Executive Magistrate dropped the proceeding on the ground of the civil court being in seisin of the matter, which is illegal. In the meantime two months have expired. The life span of 144 Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding is two months and the State Govt. has power to extend the period to six months. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon decisions in Lachhaman Mallick and Others Vs. Nisakar Mallick and Others Hanif Khan ' Abdul Hanif and Ors. v. Abdul Dayal Khan and Ors. (1998) 14 OCR 640 and Nabaghana Mohanty and Others Vs. Dwarikanath Tripathy and Another, . A counter has been filed by the opposite parties where it has been stated that the Petitioner/Ist party has filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jeypore registered as C.S. No. 53 of 2008 with a prayer to declare her right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and protect Easementary right of preference on existing road, conveyance, privileges liberties and appurtenances, declaring deed No. 421 of 2007 as null and void and recovery of land upon demolition of any structure. In the said suit, an Interim Application for injunction has also been filed in I.A. No. 22 of 2008 and the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Jeypore, who is in seisin in the aforesaid case, by order dated 16.05.2008 directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property purchased by the Plaintiff. He also appointed a survey knowing commissioner as per his order dated 23.05.2008. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner filed FAO No. 236 of 2008 before this Court challenging the order dated 20.05.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jeypore. On 24.06.2008 this Court disposed of the appeal and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of suit property till disposal of the I.A. No. 22 of 2008 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jeypore. The present opposite parties, on coming to know about the above order passed by this Court, filed a Misc. Division), Jeypore. On 24.06.2008 this Court disposed of the appeal and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of suit property till disposal of the I.A. No. 22 of 2008 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jeypore. The present opposite parties, on coming to know about the above order passed by this Court, filed a Misc. Case with a prayer to modify the order dated 24.06.2008 which was allowed on 08.08.2008 to the extent that any construction made by the opposite parties shall be subject to the result of I.A No. 22 of 2008 pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and further observed that if the trial court would find that the opposite parties (Respondents) have encroached upon any part of the Plaintiff's land, they should remove the said construction at their own cost and would not make any further construction thereafter. Immediately after disposal of the Misc. Case, the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jeypore vide order dated 13.08.2008 allowed the present opposite parties to carry out construction work on their plot purchased by them and also directed the Civil Court Commissioner to submit a report by 20.08.2008. The opposite parties also mentioned in the counter that the Petitioner (1st party) with an ill-intention filed a petition u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure which was rightly rejected by the Sub-Collector on 28.08.2008. The opposite parties also filed a further affidavit on 18.11.2008 stating therein that the Petitioner preferred a SLP against the order passed in FAO 236 of 2008, which was dismissed by the apex court on 15.09.2008. In the further affidavit it has been stated that on 30.09.2008 the Petitioner has withdrawn the suit, i.e., C.S, No. 53 of 2008, without any leave to file a fresh suit. Thereafter, another suit has been filed by the Petitioner, i.e., Civil Suit No. 98 of 2008 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jeypore. 4. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently contended that the opposite parties have started construction as per the direction of the Civil Court on their own land purchased by them vide order passed on 13.08.2008 in I.A. No. 22 of 2008. While the suit was pending, on 20.08.2008 this application u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed which has rightly been rejected. Against that order this revision has been preferred on 16.09.2008. While the suit was pending, on 20.08.2008 this application u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed which has rightly been rejected. Against that order this revision has been preferred on 16.09.2008. He also submitted against the order passed in Misc. Case No. 505 of 2008 arising out of FAO No. 236 of 2008, the Petitioner filed SLP (Civil) No. 21986 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 15.09.2008. After obtaining status quo order from this Court on 23.09.2008 in this criminal revision, C.S. No. 53 of 2008 was withdrawn by the present Petitioner on 30.09.2008 without any leave to file further suit for the selfsame dispute. However, subsequently on 27.10.2008, another suit being Civil Suit No. 98 of 2008 was filed. He also submitted that in the meantime 60 days have already passed from the initiation of proceeding and the proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable when civil litigation is pending between the parties for the self-same property for declaration of right, title and possession. He submitted mat the Petitioner first approached the civil court for grant of certain relief in his favour, but could not succeed. Thereafter, an application to initiate a proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by him. Since the self-same matter was pending before the Civil Court, and the order of such Civil Court would be binding on both the parties, the said application has been rejected. As such, the revision application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the Petitioner with an ulterior motive filed one case after another in order to harass the opposite parties. Law is well settled that when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties have approached the civil court for interim order, the proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure is nothing but multiplicity of the litigation. In support of his contention he relies upon decisions in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others Choudhury Prafulla Kumar Das and Another Vs. Lingaraj Rath and Another, and Sana Baral and Ors. v. Shri S.B. Mohanty and Anr. 2004 (II) OLR 644 . 5. Perused the case record, decisions cited by the parties, provisions of Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure and the record of F.A.O. 236 of 2008. State of U.P. and Others Choudhury Prafulla Kumar Das and Another Vs. Lingaraj Rath and Another, and Sana Baral and Ors. v. Shri S.B. Mohanty and Anr. 2004 (II) OLR 644 . 5. Perused the case record, decisions cited by the parties, provisions of Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure and the record of F.A.O. 236 of 2008. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to pendency of the civil suit at the time of filing of the application u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also no dispute that the suit was for declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the case land and an interim application was also there. The order passed by this Court in the FAO was also confirmed by the apex court. It is not disputed that after obtaining status quo order in this revision, C.S. No. 53 of 2008 has been withdrawn on 30.09.2008 and another suit has been filed being C.S. No. 98 of 2008. It is also not disputed that the very same land is involved in the Civil Suit and in the meantime two months have expired from the date of filing of the application u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Powers u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to be exercised in case of urgency of situation for prevention of imminent breach of public peace and tranquillity. The basis of an action u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure is consideration of urgency of prevailing situation and the power is to be exercised for preventing disorder and obstruction and annoyance with a view to secure public peace and tranquillity. In other words, the order u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to meet the emergent situation only. In the event, the order is passed, the same remains in force for a period of two months. In the instant case, interim order was passed in the Civil Suit after considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience and possession of the land. In the I.A. filed in the said suit the point regarding existence of imminent breach of peace was raised by the Petitioner and was considered by the Civil Court. Once the civil court is in seisin and passes some interim order, it is not open to the defeated party to approach the criminal court to nullify the same order. In the I.A. filed in the said suit the point regarding existence of imminent breach of peace was raised by the Petitioner and was considered by the Civil Court. Once the civil court is in seisin and passes some interim order, it is not open to the defeated party to approach the criminal court to nullify the same order. In the instant case, the Executive Magistrate has applied his mind and rejected the application u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure by the impugned order, which was passed on 28.08.2008. In the meantime, two months have elapsed. There is no bar to initiate a fresh proceeding u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure if there is imminent and reasonable apprehension of breach of peace. It is also decided by apex court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (Supra) that multiplicity of the litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted for meaningless litigations. 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate. The criminal revision is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. Final Result : Dismissed