A.N.VARMA,J. - (1.) A prelimi­nary objection has been raised in this Civil Revision on behalf of Mile opposite party. The objection is that the Civil Revision is not competent inasmuch as orders passed by Civil courts under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be called in question by way of appeal or revision
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts for determining the above controversy are as follows: - In proceedings relating to certain agricultural plots between the parties, a reference was made by a Magistrate under Section 146 of the Code of Crimi­nal Procedure to the learned Munsif. The learned Munsif answered the refer­ence in favour of the opposite parties. The present Revision is directed against the said order of the learned Munsif. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance on two deci­sions in support of his submission that order passed under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be called in question whether by way of appeal or Revision. He has cited the case reported in Ram Chandra Aqgarwal v. State of U, P. (A.I.R. 1966S.C. 1888 pp. 1890-1891) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that no appeal or Revision would be maintainable against an order passed by a civil court under Section 146 (I-D)Cr.P.C. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel for this opposite-parties is a Full Bench deci­sion of this Court in Farzand All v. Shaukat All and others (A.I.R. 1971 All. 12 p.14.). In para­graph 8 of that decision, the Full Bench has placed reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and has held that an order passed under Section 146 (I-D) Cr.P.C. is not open to appeal or Revision. Both these decisions cited by the learned counsel for the opposite-parties fully conclude the controversy and I hold that an order passed under Section 146(I-D) Cr.P.C. by a civil court cannot be called in question whe­ther by way of appeal or by way of Re­vision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the aforesaid case reported in A.I.E. 1966 S.C. 1888, in which it has been held that proceed­ings before a learned Munsif under Sec­tion 146, Cr.P.C. are Civil proceedings amenable to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel argued that if the proceedings before the learned Munsif under Section 146, Cr. P.C. are Held to be civil proceedings, then it follows as a necessary corollary that a Revision would also lie under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Proce­dure. Precisely, this argument was raised in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, their Lordships of the Sup­reme Court expressly repelled this very argument and held that an appeal or Revision against an order under Section 146(I-D) of Cr.P.C. is specifically ex­cluded because of the provision of that section of the Cr.P.C. Irrespective, therefore, of whether the proceedings before the learned Munsif were civil proceedings or not, it is now establish­ed law that the order is not amenable to appeal or revision. I therefore, hold that this Revision in not maintainable.;