Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned District Magistrate Jhun-jhunu, in a case under section 145 Cr. P. C. on an application for revision filed by Murlidas who for the sake of convenience, will be hereinafter referred to as second party. The proceedings were taken on the application of Kishanram who would be hereinafter referred to as the first party.
(2.) THE learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu drew up a preliminary order on the 6th October, 1947, and issued notices to and called upon the parties to file their respective written statements. Interim attachment of the land in dispute was also made. Both the parties filed their written statements and adduced evidence in consonance with the provisions of section 145 Cr. P. C. THE learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the first party had continuously been in possession for a very long time till the date of the preliminary order and consequently declared that the first party who had been in continuous possession was entitled to maintain possession. Against this order the second party went in revision to the court of the District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, who has made this reference recommending that the second party be restored to possession as he had been in actual possession of the land in dispute. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the first party that the learned District Magistrate was wrong in making a reference in the case, because only a question of fact was involved. In proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. revision is a very exceptional remedy and this remedy cannot be ordinarily resorted to. On behalf of the second party it has been argued that there was certain evidence produced by tie first party himself, which was not acted upon by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and thus the Magistrate was legally wrong, and m the special circumstances of the case interference can be made in revision. To my mind it was not a case in which a reference ought to have been made. In cases under section 145 Cr. P. C. it is only in very special cases that a revision; Court interferes. Prior to the amendment of Criminal procedure code of 1923, the remedy by way of revision was expressly barrel by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898. However, although the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act 1923 allowed revision in cases under section 145 Cr. P. C. also, but it has always been hell that remedy lies only in very special cases. In the present case, both the parties went into evidence. The learned Magistrate, before whom the witnesses were examined, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the first party had been in continuous possession for a very long time right up to the date of the preliminary order. It may be that another court might have taken a different view of the evidence but on this ground alone a revision does not lie specially in a case like the present one where another remedy is available by way of a civil suit. The mere fact that the learned Magistrate did not act upon a certain evidence of the first party himself does not entitle the second party to a revision. The learned District Magistrate thought that the application of the first party, dated the 2nd August, 1947, made to the Jagirdar of the village showed that on the said date the first party had been ousted, and the second party had obtained possession of the laid in dispute. As the preliminary order was made on the 6th of October, 1947, he thought that the first party had been dispossessed more than two months before the preliminary order, and therefore he was not entitled to a declaration for possession. On a reading of the said document, I do not find that it shows that the first party had been dispossessed by the second party on that date. The only allegations are that the second party was trying to disturb the possession of the first party and has stolen some of the articles. This does not amount to a dispossession of the first party by the second party. I regret I am not in agreement with the learned District Magistrate, and am unable to accept the reference. The reference is rejected. . ;