Onkar Singh, J.
1. This reference has been made by the Civil and Sessions Judge. Lucknow arising out of proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) recommending that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dated 21-4-1969 be quashed.
2. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code were started in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Lucknow on the report of the Station Officer, Kakotl dated 14-4-1963. The dispute was between Babu Ram Rastogi and late Hakim Sajjad Husain over the possession of grove on (plots Nos. 483, 486, 491. 499, 445, 467, 469. and 470 measuring 20 bighas 6 biswas 7 biswansis situate at village Kathingra, police station Kakori, district Lucknow. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the preliminary order on 4-5-1963 and also attached the grove in question and directed the parties to file their affidavits and documents in support of their respective claims as to the possession thereof. In the meantime Hakim Sajjad Husain died on 31-8-1963 and his widow Smt. Mohaddisa Begam, his brother Mirza Mohammad Askari and his sister Smt. Sikandar Ja_han Beflam were substituted in his place in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow, The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate found himself unable to decide the ques-. tion of possession and made a reference under Section 146 of the Code to the Civil Court. While the matter was pend- ing before the Munsif Havali in the| Civil Court. Mirza Mohammad Askari also died and Mirza Kazim Husain, Baqar Husain, Raza Husain. Mirza Ali Hasan; Mirza Muzaffar Husain,' Khadim Husain,; Mehdi Husain, Askari Husain and Bazait. Husain were brought on record as his legal representatives. The learned Mun-sliiv ultimately found that Hakim Sajjad Husain, the original first party, had been in possession on the date of the preliminary order and two months next before that and sent back the record to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Lucknow. In respect of the record, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Lucknow on 4-6-1968 passed an order in conformity with that finding in favour of (1) Smt. Mohaddisa Begam, (2) Mirza Kazim Husain, (3) Baqar Husain, (4) Raza Husain, (5) Muzaffar Husain, (6) Mehdi Husain, (7) Smt. Sinkan-dar Jahan Begam, (8) Ali Husain and (9) Baqar Husain and restrained the opposite party Babu Ram Rastogi from interfering with the possession of the first party till they were evicted by an order of the competent court according to law and directed the attached property to be released in favour of the first party. On 21-4-1969 the learned Magistrate reviewed his order dated 4-6-1968 and di-reefed that the order be read as if it did not make any mention of the names of any persons and that the final order was in favour of only the legal representatives of Hakim Sajjad Husain,
3. Feeling aggrieved by that order, Mirza Baqar Husain, Mirza Raza and Mirza Ali Hasan filed a revision in the Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow contending that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to review the order dated 4-6-1968.
4. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the final order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 4-6-1968 was a 'judgment' and the bar imposed by Section 369 of the Code was applicable and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. He, therefore, made a recommendation to this Court for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 21-4-1969.
5. An application under Section 561-A of the Code has been filed by Smt. Mohaddisa Begam opposing the refer-rence and for upholding the order dated 21-4-1969.
6. The view of the learned Sessions Judge that the final order dated 4-6-1968 passed under Section 145(6) of the Code is a 'judgment' is erroneous but 'he was rifiht that the learned Magistrate could not revise its order under Section 145(6). In Lallan Misir v. Ram Rachchha. : AIR1926All242 , it was held that an order under Section 145 of the Code is a final order ; and it is not open either to the Magis--trate who passed it or to his successor to -review it or to set it aside in any. way If a court does so act, its action is without jurisdiction. In my opinion a gj trate cannot invoke his inherent jurisdiction to revise his order under Section 145(6) of the Code not because such an order, is a 'judgment within the meaning of Section 369 of the Code but because Sub-section (6) of Section 145 in express terms confers finality on that order. This seems to be the main reason why it has been consistently held that an order under Section 145.of the Code cannot be reviewed or revised by the same Magistrate or by his successor in office. It has, however, been held by some courts that where an order under Section 145(6) of the Code is itself a nullity due to the failure to serve the required preliminary notices under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 on all the parties, the Magistrate may invoke his inherent powers and ignore the same but he cannot re vise it merely because he considers that a party who had due notice of the proceedings and was absent on the date fixed for hearing, satisfied him that there was sufficient reason for his absence on that date. See Krishna Mohan v. Sudha-kar Das. : AIR1953Ori281 . This is. however, a different matter and is not the case here. It is thus clear that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not competent to review his own order dated 4-6-1969. The order dated 21-4-1969 therefore, was without jurisdiction and has to be quashed.
7. The learned Counsel for Smt. Mohaddisa Begam contended that the applicant's husband had died issueless and she is the sole heir of her husband as provided for by the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and that the property being grove is governed by the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and on 11-7-1968 the consolidation Courts have also held that the applicant's name be entered over khata No. 9 in place of Babu Ram Rastogi. He has further contended that the order dated 4-6-1968 was obtained by misrepresentation, suppression of facts and without notice to the applicant. The question whether the order dated 4-6-1968 was obtained by misrepresentation, suppression of facts and without notice to the applicant does not appear to . be correct. The applicant had been contesting the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code throughout and all orders in-, eluding the orders for substitution in place of her deceased husband were made by the court to her knowledge and it is surprising that she did not take any action by opposing their substitution. If the title of the applicant had been finally decided by a competent revenue court, she should seek her further remedy by applying to the proper forum.
8. Inherent power conferred on High Courts under Section 561-A of the Code has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. See T. H. Husain v. M. P. Mondkar : 1958CriLJ701 . In my opinion it is not a fit case in which the inherent ipowers of this court should be exercised. The impugned order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was without jurisdiction and, as such, has to be quashed.
9. The result is that the reference is accepted and the order of the Sub-Divieional Magistrate dated 21-4-1969 is quashed. The application under Section 661-A of the Code filed by Smt. Mohaddisa Beaam is hereby dismissed.