JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by order dated 31.10.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Gudamalani, Barmer whereby, the possession of the attached property was directed to be handed over to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and against order dated 17.10.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Barmer whereby, revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected and the order dated 31.10.2011 was affirmed. 2. It is contended that petitioners had purchased the disputed property in the year 1965-67 by registered sale deed. They were in possession. Respondents tried to dispossess them on which proceedings were initiated under Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2000. 3. The property was attached and now the Courts have directed that the property be handed over to the respondents affecting the rights of the petitioners who the registered owner of the property. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the misc. petition. His contention is that the Courts below have come to a concurrent finding that petitioners were in possession of the property and that there was a small temple of Khodiyal Mata on the disputed premises when the possession was taken over by the Receiver. 5. It is contended that if petitioners have any right over the property, the course available is to approach the civil Court. While dealing application under Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. Courts to only see whether a person has been forcibly dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report is received by the Magistrate. 6. It is also contended that there is specific finding of the Courts that petitioners have not been dispossessed within two months. It is also contended that the petitioner has availed the remedy of revision, there being a bar on filing of second revision under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken. 7. I have considered the contention and perused the impugned order. 8. Both the Courts below after considering the evidence have come to the conclusion that petitioner was not dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the matter was reported to the Magistrate. There being bar on filing of second revision. The present is not a case where there is abuse of powers of Courts so as to invoke the inherent powers. 9. The misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. There being bar on filing of second revision. The present is not a case where there is abuse of powers of Courts so as to invoke the inherent powers. 9. The misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. Stay application stands disposed.