JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order dated 17.01.2013 in Na.Ka.No.95/2013/A-5 on the file of the 1st respondent. Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.95/2013/A-5 dated 18.01.2013.) Common Order: 1. Late Sir.A.T.Panneerselvam owner of a large estate of land measuring more than 200 acres in Thirvarur District died leaving 3 sons and 3 daughters. It is claimed that his estate was divided into 3 lots under schedules “A”, “B” and “C” among his sons by way of a registered partition deed dated 02/05/1953. The residual properties left in common under “D” schedule. Subsequently, the “ D” schedule property also got divided among them. The three sons of Sir.A.T.Panneerselvam, later had bequeathed their shares in the property to their kins. Since most of them were landlords in absentia, they have leased the land or engaged agents for cultivation. 2. Mr.Martin Selvam, who is the son of Edward Thamariselvam, grand son of A.T.Panneerselvam, approached the District Munsif Court, Nannilam as lease under Mr.Jerome Rayappan (11th Defendant) and Mr.Alexander Rayappan (12th defendant) for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (totally 12 in numbers), their men or agents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties (about 51 items) till he is evicted under due process of law. The suit filed during the month of July, 2012 and taken on file by O.S.No.68/2012 by District Munsif Court, Nannilam. 3. The cause of action for this suit as found in the plaint is that, during the month of November 2011 and in the 2nd week of February 2012, when the defendants came over to Selvapuram Village, they demanded to surrender the possession of the suit properties to them and on 10/11/2011 and on 13/04/2012, they lodged police complaints against the plaintiff and against the sub tenants under the plaintiff. 4. The records placed by the parties indicates that, in respect of properties traced to Late Sir.A.T.Panneer Selvam, the dispute between the owners and the leasee/cultivating tenants had led to filing of criminal complaints immediately before filing of this suit. They are Crime No. 169/2012, dated 15.04.2012; Crime No. 201/2012 dated 21.07.2012; and Crime No. 202/2012 dated 21.07.2012. 5. 4. The records placed by the parties indicates that, in respect of properties traced to Late Sir.A.T.Panneer Selvam, the dispute between the owners and the leasee/cultivating tenants had led to filing of criminal complaints immediately before filing of this suit. They are Crime No. 169/2012, dated 15.04.2012; Crime No. 201/2012 dated 21.07.2012; and Crime No. 202/2012 dated 21.07.2012. 5. After filing the suit, the plaintiff Martin Selvam has given a police complaint to the police alleging disturbance to his peaceful possession of the property and the same was taken as C.S.R.No.435/2012 dated 13/12/2012. In turn, Jerome Rayappan on his part lodged a complaint against Martin Selvam that he is cultivating the land through one Divakaran and when he went to harvest the paddy, Martin Selvam is preventing him from harvesting the paddy. He wielded gun and threatened. This complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 08/2013. 6. The complaint of Martin Selvam Dated 13/12/2012 taken as C.S.R.No.435/2012 and the complaint of Jerome Rayappan registered in Crime No.08/2013 dated 11.01.2013 by the Nannilam Police triggered issuance of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C by the Executive Magistrate, Tiruvarur. The Police after registering the complaint of Jerome Rayappan, reported to the Executive Magistrate about the likelihood of breach of peace due to dispute between the group led by Jeroom Rayappan ('A' party ) and the group led by Martin Selvam ('B' party) regarding harvesting of the standing crops. 7. The Executive Magistrate in this connection caused notice dated 17/01/2013 to both the parties to participate in the enquiry fixed on the next day i.e. on 18/01/2013. Both parties participated in the enquiry. Jerome Rayappan representing the A party to ensure peace had said he has no objection for harvest and keep the yield under the custody of revenue officials. Martin Selvam who represented 'B' party had objected for harvest the paddy by others. 8. The report from Thasildar, Nannilam was called. He, in his report has stated that, out of 13.94.25 hectares of land in 24 survey numbers of the Selvapuram Village. 11.27.00 hectares of land is under samba paddy cultivation. In S.No.121/2, when the family members of Jerome Rayappan tried to harvest 0.10.0 hectare paddy out of 1.45.00 hectare, Martin Selvam stopped it and had initiated a Civil Suit before District Munsif Court, Nannillam in O.S.No.68/2012 and pending. 11.27.00 hectares of land is under samba paddy cultivation. In S.No.121/2, when the family members of Jerome Rayappan tried to harvest 0.10.0 hectare paddy out of 1.45.00 hectare, Martin Selvam stopped it and had initiated a Civil Suit before District Munsif Court, Nannillam in O.S.No.68/2012 and pending. The standing paddy cultivated in 24 survey numbers in total extend of 11.27.00 hectares out of 13.94.25 hectares will be ripe for harvest within 5 days. If not harvested, the crop will wither away. Hence, recommended to take action under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, in exercise of Power vested under Section 145 (8) of Cr.P.C., the Executive Magistrate stating that, subject to the outcome of the civil suit to prevent decay of standing crops and to avoid any breach of peace, appointed the Thasildar as ‘receiver’ for the disputed land. Directed him to supervise the harvest and keep the yield under revenue custody. Permitted the Thasildar to sell the paddy to State Marketing Corporation and deposit the sale proceeds into the State account. 10. The order of the Executive Magistrate, is challenged by Jerome Rayappan of 'A' party, in Cr.R.C.No.83/2013 and Martin Selvam of 'B' party in Crl.R.C.No.108 of 2013. 11. According to Jerome Rayappan ('A' party), who is the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.83/2013, it is alleged that after the demise of the patriarch Sir A.T.Panneer Selvam in the year 2010, the members of 'B' party with intention to grab the land had tried to trespass into the land owned by him and started cultivating the land without any permission. When questioned, he promised to complete the harvest and restore the lands back to the petitioner. Accordingly he took possession and cultivated the land through Divakaran. While so, when he went for harvesting during the 1st week of January, 2013, members of 'B' party prevented. So he sought for police protection on 08/01/2013 and started harvesting with police protection. But on the next day, the police suddenly withdrew the protection. A case has been registered on 13/01/2013 and forwarded to the Executive Magistrate. Without applying the mind, the Executive Magistrate has passed the order to appear before him on 18/01/2013. Considering the pendency of the civil suit, the Executive Magistrate ought not to have caused notice dated 17/01/2013 to appear before him for enquiry. A case has been registered on 13/01/2013 and forwarded to the Executive Magistrate. Without applying the mind, the Executive Magistrate has passed the order to appear before him on 18/01/2013. Considering the pendency of the civil suit, the Executive Magistrate ought not to have caused notice dated 17/01/2013 to appear before him for enquiry. This petition challenging the notice dated 17/01/2013 issued for appearance of both ‘A’ and ‘B’ parties for enquiry on 18/01/2013 filed along with a miscellaneous petition Crl.M.P.No.1/2013 for stay of all proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 17/01/2013 and Crl.M.P.No.2/2013 for a direction to the Inspector of Police Nannilam to provide police protection to the petitioner (Jerome Rayappan) to harvest the paddy in the lands which are subject matter of the impugned proceedings of the first respondent (RDO). 12. This Court on 24/01/2013 has passed order in Crl.M.P.No.2/2013 in Crl.R.C.No.83/2013, issuing following directions:- * Since on instructions, it is represented by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the crops are withering away, the third repondent-police is directed to give necessary police protection to the petitioner to harvest the paddy, at the earliest. * To safeguard the interest of the second respondent and as stated by the learned Government Advocate, the harvesting shall be done in the presence and supervision of an Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court. Since, the lands are situated near the Thiruvarur District, the Advocate Commissioner from Mannargudi Court shall be appointed. It is learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the name of one Mr.N.Swaminathan, who is a Senior Counsel of Mannargudi Bar was suggested. * Mr.N.Swaminathan, Advocate, residing at No.78, Taluk Office Road, Mannargudi 614 001 (Mobile No.9443123766) is hereby appointed as the Advocate Commissioner, who will supervise the entire harvesting and file a report in respect of numberb bags of paddy harvesting and all the details of the entire harvest to this Court. * The third respondent viz., Inspector of Police, Nannilam Police Station, shall give all necessary police protection for the petitioner to harvest the paddy in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner. * A copy of this order shall be given to the Deputy Superintending of Police, Thiruvarur, for reference. * The Advocate Commissioner, shall also give due notice to all the parties concerned, including the second respondent, at the time of harvesting the paddy and file a detailed report before this Court by 05.02.2013. * A copy of this order shall be given to the Deputy Superintending of Police, Thiruvarur, for reference. * The Advocate Commissioner, shall also give due notice to all the parties concerned, including the second respondent, at the time of harvesting the paddy and file a detailed report before this Court by 05.02.2013. * The initial renumeration of the Advocate Commissioner is fixed at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), which is to be paid by the petitioner. * Report by 05.02.2013. 13. While so, Martin Selvam of B-party has filed Crl.R.C.No.108/2013 challenging the order of the Executive Magistrate dated 18/01/2013 appointing receiver for 24 items of land mentioned in schedule to an extend measuring 11.27.00 hectares. Martin Selvam contended that, his suit in O.S.No.68/2012 is in respect of 47 items of property, which stands in the name of Jerome Rayappan 4 items of law which stands in the name of Joseph Alexander Rayappan leased to him. In the said suit, I.A.No.256/2012 in O.S.No.68 of 2012 is pending for interim order. The Executive Magistrate has passed an order of appointing receiver in respect of 24 items of properties. In fact, only items 1, 2 and 23 alone are subject matter of the suit. While so, how the other items of properties from items 3 to 22 and item 24 are included and why the other 44 items of suit schedule not included in the impugned order is not explained and this non application of mind vitiates the proceedings of the Executive Magistrate dated 18/01/2013. 14. Martin Selvam filed Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.No.2/2013 in Crl.R.C.no.108 of 2013 for a direction to give police protection to the petitioner to harvest the paddy raised in the plaint schedule properties in O.S.No.68/2012 and Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.No.3/2013 in Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2013 for permission to harvest the paddy standing in the property mentioned in the suit schedule. Later he filed Crl.M.P.No.4/2013 in Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2013 to direct Jerome Rayappan to deposit the harvested paddy and haystack to the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court, and in Crl.M.P.No.5/2013, he prayed to recall the order dated 24/01/2013 in Crl.M.P.No.2/2013 in Crl.R.C.No.83/2013 and also to direct the 1st respondent (Jerome Rayappan) to deposit entire sale proceeds representing the sale of 2000 bags of paddy to the credit of the above Criminal Revision Case, pending its disposal. 15. 15. The Miscellaneous petition Crl.M.P.No.5/2013 in Crl.R.C.No.83/2013 came to be filed by Martin Selvam alleging that under the guise of implementing the direction of the High Court order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2/2013 dated 24/01/2013, the Advocate Commissioner Mr.Swaminathan, had harvested paddy standing in 78 acres of land cultivated by Martin Selvam. Totally, 2000 bags each about 61 kgs was harvested in the absence of VAO. The Advocate Commissioner has filed a false report before this Court as if only 502 bags of paddy was harvested. The video and photos taken at the time of harvest will prove otherwise. Further alleging that by misuse of the judicial process at the behest of a sitting Judge of the High Court, injustice has caused to him. Hence sought for recall of the order dated 24/01/2013, the operative portion of that order is extracted earlier in this judgment for reference at paragraph 12. 16. The Learned Judge, against whom motive was attributed by Martin Selvam in his petition and attempted to get the personal details of the Learned Judge through RTI was proceeded under Contempt of Courts Act, in a suo motu contempt proceedings No:1527/2014. The contempt proceedings came to be stayed by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.No. 2/2014. The Learned Single Judge who initiated suo motu contempt vide a detailed order dated 18/08/2014 opined that the order of the Division Bench is in violation of Article 215 of the Constitution of India and hence perincuriam. 17. This Court stop here from discussing any further about the above said collateral proceedings and its outcome, since they are beyond the scope of the impugned order under challenge, except to place on record about the events which has taken place and being one of the causes for delay in disposing these two revision petitions for nearly 9 years. 18. Thereafter, Martin Selvam who is the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.108/2013 and the Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.108 of 2013, has filed a petition on 07/04/2021 in Crl.M.P.No.4763/2021 in Crl.R.C.No.83/2013, to permit him to cross examine the Advocate Commissioner Mr.Swaminathan on the report submitted by him in Crl.R.C.No.83/2013. 19. 18. Thereafter, Martin Selvam who is the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.108/2013 and the Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.108 of 2013, has filed a petition on 07/04/2021 in Crl.M.P.No.4763/2021 in Crl.R.C.No.83/2013, to permit him to cross examine the Advocate Commissioner Mr.Swaminathan on the report submitted by him in Crl.R.C.No.83/2013. 19. On 25/01/2022, when the matter was taken up for consideration, this court considering the background facts, has held that, the petitioner Martin Selvam who is shown as 'B' party in the impugned proceedings of the RDO is entitled to cross examine the Advocate Commissioner for the Court to ensure whether the allegations made by him is prima facie correct. 20. The operative portion of the order dated 25/01/2012, reads as below:- 18. Thus, I hold that the petitioner/B-party is entitled to cross examine the Advocate Commissioner. But this Court has to ensure that the allegations are more than prima facie correct. The affidavit of the B-Party does not contain any proper description of the 78 acres and which of the photographs and videos submitted by him depict lands which do not from part of 11-27 hectares which was permitted by this Court. To a query to the said effect posted by this Court during the Course of the hearing, the Learned Court for B-Party, submitted that as a matter of fact this application was filed for the larger relief of leading evidence, including cross examination and that B-Party is ready to lead evidence first to establish his allegations. I am in agreement with the said course, before allowing the Officer of the Court to be cross examined by the petitioner/B-Party. I, therefore, allow the Crl.M.P.No.4763 of 2021 on the following terms:- (i) That the petitioner shall lead such evidence in such form has he think fit to substantiate his allegation that (a)harvest was carried on beyond the 11.27 Hectares of land; (b) that it was not 502 bags of paddy which is harvested but about 2000 bags. It is needless to state that the respondent A-Party will be entitled to cross examination and let in evidence on their part also; (ii) Upon consideration of such evidence, this Court will decide and permit cross examination of the Advocate Commissioner thereafter. (iii)Post the Main Crl.R.C.Nos.83 and 108 of 2013 for evidence of Petitioner/B-Party on 08.02.2022. 21. After the change of roster, the matter has been listed before this Court for consideration. (iii)Post the Main Crl.R.C.Nos.83 and 108 of 2013 for evidence of Petitioner/B-Party on 08.02.2022. 21. After the change of roster, the matter has been listed before this Court for consideration. When the matter was heard on 07.07.2022, the learned counsels stated that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.01.2022, the witness is present for recording his evidence. 22. From the pleadings in the respective revision petitions, it is noted that in the Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2013 in Crl.R.C.No.108 of 2013, Martin Selvam had sought for police protection to harvest paddy in the suit schedule and question the legality of Revenue Divisional Officer for including only three items of properties shown in the suit schedule and omitting the remaining 44 items of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. However, when the Court appointed receiver has harvested the paddy standing in the properties mentioned in the suit, he has questioned the action of the Advocate Commissioner for exceeding the mandate given to him by the Court. Also to be noted that the notice dated 17.01.2013 and proceedings dated 18.01.2013 of RDO are not a final order. It was an order passed to save the withering crop and to prevent breach of peace. When the order impugned in these petitions was and interim order, person aggrieved could have participated in the enquiry sought possession or repossession as the case may be. Instead of exercising the right under Section 145(4) of Cr.P.C. or 145(6) of Cr.P.C. they both had rushed to the High Court against the interim protective order passed by the Executive Magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 145(8) of Cr.P.C. After the High Court seized the matter in exercise of its revisional power, it is now too late to direct the RDO to complete the enquiry and file the report. Since the proceeding initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C has out lived the purpose. 23. Since the proceeding initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C has out lived the purpose. 23. The revision petitions under consideration primarily against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate in his proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. When a civil suit pending for injunction not to disturb the possession without following the due process of law, (i) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the legal principles governing the effect of the order of a Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in Shanti Kumar Panda [Shanti Kumar Panda] v. Shakuntala Devi reported in (2004)1 SCC 438 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “an order passed by the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code is an order by a criminal Court and that too based on a summary enquiry. The order is entitled to respect and weighed before the competent Court at the interlocutory stage. At the stage of final adjudication of rights, which would be on the evidence adduced before the Court, the order of the Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence. (ii) The civil Court does have jurisdiction to make an interim order including an order of ad-interim injunction inconsistent with the order of the Executive Magistrate. Even at the stage of passing an ad-interim order the party unsuccessful before the Executive Magistrate may on material placed before the Court succeed in making out a strong prima facie case demonstrating the finding of the Executive Magistrate to be without jurisdiction, palpably wrong or self-inconsistent in which or the like cases the court may, after recording its reasons and satisfaction, make an order inconsistent with or in departure from, the one made by the Executive Magistrate. 24. In Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 440 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph No.14. “14. Reliance has been placed on the case of Jhummamal v. State of M.P.[ (1988) 4 SCC 452 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 974] It is submitted that this authority lays down that merely because a civil suit is pending does not mean that proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be set at naught. In our view this authority does not lay down any such broad proposition. In this case the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code had resulted in a concluded order. In our view this authority does not lay down any such broad proposition. In this case the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code had resulted in a concluded order. Thereafter the party, who had lost, filed civil proceedings. After filing the civil proceedings he prayed that the final order passed in the Section 145 proceedings be quashed. It is in that context that this Court held that merely because a civil suit had been filed did not mean that the concluded order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be quashed. This is entirely a different situation. In this case the civil suit had been filed first. An order of status quo had already been passed by the competent civil court. Thereafter Section 145 proceedings were commenced. No final order had been passed in the proceedings under Section 145. In our view on the facts of the present case the ratio laid down in Ram Sumer case[ (1985) 1 SCC 427 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 98] fully applies. We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed, Section 145 proceedings would never lie. It is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil court that proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil court would be binding on the Magistrate.” 25. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2022 after discussing the legal position qua the facts of the case in hand has recorded that : “16. Thus, the parties cannot take advantage or plead possession only by virtue of the Order passed under 145 Cr.P.C. They have to independently establish their possession and entitlement before the Civil Court. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2022 after discussing the legal position qua the facts of the case in hand has recorded that : “16. Thus, the parties cannot take advantage or plead possession only by virtue of the Order passed under 145 Cr.P.C. They have to independently establish their possession and entitlement before the Civil Court. In this case, proceedings were pending in Civil Court as B-party has also filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 2012 for protection of his possession and enjoyment and the very initiation of proceedings pending civil proceedings by itself is erroneous and therefore, both sides filing two revisions impugning the same order, both revisions have to be allowed by setting aside the Order passed by the first respondent/Sub Divisional Magistrate. 17. But, however, one party that is A-Party was permitted to carry on the harvest by ex-parte ad-interim order of this Court. Even that, if the quantum of paddy bags as claimed by A-Party and the Advocate Commissioner is agreed, as 502 bags, then liberty can be given to the B-Party to work out his rights in the manner known to law. However, in this case, B-party alleges that taking advantage of the interim order, with the help of the commissioner, totally 78 acres were harvested. Therefore, it is just and necessary, that before passing final orders in the revision, this Court has to either accept the report of the commissioner or give a finding on the allegations of B-Party in his favour. Therefore, it is just and necessary to consider the report of the Advocate Commissioner first for acceptance. In this regard, since BParty is objecting to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, an opportunity has to be granted to them to cross examine. The law on this aspect is again made clear by the Constitution bench in Ram Janmabumi Temple case, in paragraph 661 which is as follows:- “661. In this regard, since BParty is objecting to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, an opportunity has to be granted to them to cross examine. The law on this aspect is again made clear by the Constitution bench in Ram Janmabumi Temple case, in paragraph 661 which is as follows:- “661. In principle, we are of the view that A-party to a suit is not foreclosed from raising objections to the report of a Commissioner or from leading the evidence of its own witnesses to controvert the findings merely because it has not requested the court to summon the Commissioner for the purpose of recourse to the enabling power which is conferred by Rule 10(2) to request the Court to allow the examination of the Commissioner in court, may in a matter touching upon the expertise of the Commissioner face a peril.” 26. The object of the Section 145 of Cr.P.C., is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent a breach of peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, which the Court finds, they had immediately before the dispute, until the actual right of one of the parties has been determined by a civil court. Unfortunately, as usual like in many other cases, this provision has been grossly misapplied. 27. Though superficially the relief sought in these two petitions by two rival parties appears to be one and the same, viz to quash the proceedings initiated by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the interlocutory applications filed by them are not the same. The Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.3 of 2013 in Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2013 filed by Jerome Rayappan, he has sought for permission to harvest the paddy in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint in O.S.No.68 of 2012. Precisely, his prayer is to permit him to harvest paddy standing in 47 + 4 items of property mentioned in the suit in O.S.No.68 of 2012. Precisely, his prayer is to permit him to harvest paddy standing in 47 + 4 items of property mentioned in the suit in O.S.No.68 of 2012. Whereas, the order of the Executive Magistrate was only in respect of the 24 items of the land measuring to an extent of 11.27.00 hectares but later, he has filed Crl.M.P.No.4763 of 2021 to permit him to adduce further evidence by cross examining the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court alleging that the Advocate Commissioner has harvested paddy in 78 acres of land which are not covered in the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate. 28. Thus, it is clear from the records, while the RDO passed order based on the report of the Thasildar that the dispute is only regarding 24 items of property mentioned in the impugned order, the parties, while escalating the dispute to the High Court level has deliberately drawn the issue beyond the scope of their respective revision petition by including the properties which are subject matter of the pending suit but not the subject matter of the RDO proceedings against which they have filed the revision petition. 29. In the said context, this Court, on perusing the records and interim orders passed on the earlier occasions, has observed that in view of the dispute between two groups regarding possession of the property and Civil Court has seized of the matter, it is better to direct the parties to work out their remedy before the Civil Court. Then, the counsels sought time to attempt amicable settlement between the parties, hence, adjourned the matter. 30. After hearing the learned counsels on either side and after deep contemplation, this Court is unable to arrive at any other different opinion except to say that the purpose of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., on 18.01.2013 has outlived its purpose. As on date, there is no issue of breach of peace in the locality. The issue now is whether the Advocate Commissioner by virtue of the interim order has harvested paddy in the field mentioned in the impugned order of the Executive Magistrate (or) also from the field mentioned in the schedule of the suit in O.S.No.68 of 2012. 31. As on date, there is no issue of breach of peace in the locality. The issue now is whether the Advocate Commissioner by virtue of the interim order has harvested paddy in the field mentioned in the impugned order of the Executive Magistrate (or) also from the field mentioned in the schedule of the suit in O.S.No.68 of 2012. 31. This Court is of the opinion that to ascertain the above fact the Civil Court before which the parties are agitating their right of possession will be the appropriate Court to decide after recording evidence, even though the Advocate Commissioner, who has harvested the field, was appointed and acted by an order of this Court. 32. Whatever order passed either by the Executive Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 145 Cr.P.C., or by the High Court in exercise of its power under Sections 397, 401 or 482 of Cr.P.C, it is only a quasi judicial proceedings passed summarily. Regarding possession, the decision of the Civil Court after proper trial alone will be final and prevail upon the other orders passed summarily. 33. With the above said observation, both the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of directing the parties to let in evidence before the trial Court and prove their possession as on the date of filing the suit. The trial Court without being prejudiced by any observation made by the Court or the interim order passed by this Court shall proceed to decide the dispute on merit based on the evidence. 34. Mr.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner Martin Selvam (B Party) submitted that high handedly while the suit was pending, the members of A-Party forcibly took away the possession and harvested the standing crop to an extent of 76 acres, while the dispute referred in RDO order is only in respect of 11.70.00 hectares. 35. If the contention of the petitioner Martin Selvam that he dispossessed pending suit, it is open for him to seek re-possession in the pending suit itself under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. If he has not sofar filed any petition and if he is advised to file any such petition, the period of limitation, shall be reckoned excluding the days from 18.01.2013 to 29.07.2022 the date of this order. 36. If he has not sofar filed any petition and if he is advised to file any such petition, the period of limitation, shall be reckoned excluding the days from 18.01.2013 to 29.07.2022 the date of this order. 36. As far as the action of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court, it is open to the parties to summon him and examine him with the available photographs and videograph evidence to ascertain the extent of land harvested by him and quantity of the paddy harvested by him.