JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the opposite party. On the application of the petitioner as the 1st Party under Section145 Cr.P.C., Misc. Case No. 84m/12 was registered and the learned Magistrate drew up a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. and attached the disputed land in exercise of power under section 146(1)Cr.P.C. by an order dated 26.6.2012, fixing 26.7.2012 for written statement of the 2nd party. 2. The 2nd party filed written statement in which he had pointed out that prior to filing of the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in between the same party and in respect of the same subject matter of dispute, the 2nd party had instituted a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 2 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge, Nalbari. 3. It was further contended that the 2nd party had possessed the disputed land and was also having a dwelling house in a part of the disputed land and the remaining portion was under his cultivation. Accordingly, prayer was made to drop the case and to withdraw the attachment order. 4. Learned Magistrate, taking note of the aforesaid contentions advanced, by an order dated 26.7.2012, kept the proceeding in abeyance until disposal of the Title Suit No. 2 of 2012. However, attachment order passed earlier, was directed to be continued. The order reads as follows: 25.7.12: Ld. Advocate for the 1st party has filed petition praying for another date for appearance of 1st party as the 1st party could not be present in the court due to illness. 2nd party present with his Ld. Advocate and has submitted W/S and copy of the T.S. case No. 2/12. Also 2nd party has prayed for dropping the case and to withdraw the attachment order passed by this Court on 26.6.12. Heard the Ld. Lawyer of 2nd party. Also seen and perused the copy of the petition and W/S submitted by the 2nd party. It appears that a Title Suit i/c with the D/L is under trial hence considering all facts and circumstances the proceeding of this case is kept in abeyance until disposal of the T.S. Case No. 2/12. The attachment order already issued will continue considering the situation. Concern police will take necessary action. 5. It appears that a Title Suit i/c with the D/L is under trial hence considering all facts and circumstances the proceeding of this case is kept in abeyance until disposal of the T.S. Case No. 2/12. The attachment order already issued will continue considering the situation. Concern police will take necessary action. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the 2nd party preferred a revision application before the Court of Sessions, Nalbari, which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 36/2012. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition by an order dated 24.6.2013. The learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the 2nd party filed Title Suit No. 2/12 on 16.2.2012 in the court of Civil Judge, Nalbari, against the 1st party and others in respect of the disputed land along with other land and that on 26/02/12, 1st Party filed a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of the C.P.C. read with section151 C.P.C. for setting aside the order for ex-parte hearing and on that day itself, Misc. Case No. 84 m/12 was instituted by the 1st party. Accordingly, it was held that although 1st party had knowledge about the institution of the aforesaid Title Suit between the parties in respect of the same subject matter of the subsequent case, suppressing the aforesaid material fact, came up with a proceeding u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. and for attachment of the disputed land. It was held by the learned Sessions Judge that there cannot be an order under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. without there being a pending 145Cr.P.C. proceeding. 6. Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition filed by the 2nd party before the Court of Sessions Judge, Nalbari was not maintainable as the order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is in the nature of interlocutory order against which no revision lies. In view of the above, it is submitted by him that this court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari. 7. Mr. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the Magistrate could not have continued the attachment order when the learned Magistrate had chosen to keep the proceeding in abeyance. 7. Mr. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the Magistrate could not have continued the attachment order when the learned Magistrate had chosen to keep the proceeding in abeyance. It is submitted that the order had taken the colour of a final order which is subject to re visional jurisdiction and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly passed the order under challenge and no interference in the said order is called for. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 9. It appears from the materials available on record that petitioner was aware of the Title Suit No. 2/12 and had also taken steps in the said proceeding. The learned Sessions Judge, as noted earlier, had held that suppressing the aforesaid facts, the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed. This position is not challenged by Mr. Z. Hussain and in fact, no copy of the application filed under section145 Cr.P.C. is also enclosed with this petition to contest the finding of suppression of material facts. 10. Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate may pass an order of attachment at any time after making the order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. if he considers the case to be one of emergency or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145 or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute until a competent court had determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. 11. Thus, under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate may pass an order of attachment during pendency of a proceeding or at the time of passing final order when he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession or when he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession until a competent court had determined the right of the parties with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. 12. In the instant case, a proceeding was initiated under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and an order of attachment was also passed. 12. In the instant case, a proceeding was initiated under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and an order of attachment was also passed. Subsequently, as has been noticed earlier, by the order dated 26.7.2012, the learned Magistrate had kept the proceeding of the case in abeyance because of pendency of civil suit and at the same time, continued with the order of attachment. It is not a case where the 2nd party had challenged only an order of attachment, which is an interlocutory order, and against which no revision lays. The revision application was filed against the order dated 26.7.2012. 13. When the Magistrate had kept the proceeding of the case in abeyance, he could not have ordered continuance of the order of attachment which is, otherwise, a step-in-aid in a pending proceeding. The order dated 26.7.2012 had taken the colour of a final order, as, though theoretically, a proceeding can be said to be pending in the records of the Magistrate, in essence, when the Magistrate is not adjudicating the proceeding itself, there is no live proceeding pending before the Magistrate. In that view of the matter, I am in agreement with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out by the petitioner for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed