A.N. Banerjee, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against an order dated 7.11.77 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate refusing to proceed with the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code on the ground that after attachment of the properties under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. he has nothing to do regarding finding out actual possession. The 2nd party petitioner has obtained the present Rule. It appears that the learned Magistrate has interpreted sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr.P.C. on the impression that whenever an order of attachment is made under sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate is incompetent to deal further with the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. I am unable to agree with such views. It would appear that sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code contemplates three of contingencies in the alternative upon which an order of attachment can be made. The first contingency is that after making an order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code the Magistrate may attach the subject of dispute if he considers the case as one of the emergency. The 2nd contingency arises if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred in Section 145 of the Code. The 3rd contingency is called for when the learned Magistrate is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute. Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code also lays down that the Magistrate may attach the subject of dispute until the competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof. In my view, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code, a Magistrate is also a competent court to determine the rights of the parties with regard to the person entitled to possession of the disputed land in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof. If the learned Magistrate is of the view that none of the parties was in such possession as is referred in Section 145 of the Code he may in order to avoid breach of peace attach the subject of dispute until a competent court has determined the rights of the patties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Similarly, he may also attach subject of dispute until a competent court has so determined the rights of the parties if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was in such possession of the subject of dispute. But in a case of emergency if the learned Magistrate for the purpose of avoiding breach of peace passes an order of attachment under sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code, I do not think that he loses his jurisdiction to proceed further with the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code which he has already drawn. He is quite competent to decide the question of possession in terms of Section 145 of the Code. Accordingly, I am of the view that if it be a case of emergency it cannot be said that the Magistrate is not a competent court within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the of the Code to determine the rights of the parties with regard to possession of the disputed land, the present case as it appears is one of emergency. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate is quite competent to proceed with the proceeding under Section 145 of Code in accordance with the provision of law from the stage it reached prior to passing of the impugned order dated 7.11.77. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7.11.77 is set aside and the Rule is made absolute to that extent. Let the matter go back to the learned Magistrate for proceeding in accordance with law from the stage the case reached prior to the passing of the aforesaid impugned order. Rule made absolute.;