George Knox, J.
1. A Magistrate of the first class of Meerut was satisfied and declared himself satisfied from information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning certain land within the local limits of his jurisdiction. He made an order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned to attend his Court and to put in written statements of their respective claims regarding the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. This being so, the Magistrate purported to deal and did deal as a matter of fact with a proceeding falling under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By Section 435, Clause (3), of the Criminal Procedure Code, his proceedings are not proceedings within the meaning of Section 435. The result is that they cannot be called for in revision or examined by this Court. This has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Maharaj Tewari v. Har Charan Rai 26 A. 144 : A.W.N. (1903) 212 : 1 Cr. L.J. 339. In that case it has also been held that this Court has no power to send for proceedings which are proceedings taken under Chapter XII, Criminal Procedure Code, either under the Code or under Section 15 of the Indian High Courts Act of 1861. Sitting as a single Judge of this Court, I am bound to follow what has there been laid down, the more so because after giving considerable study to this subject from time to time, I am satisfied that what was laid down in that case is what the Legislature intended when they enacted Clause (3) of Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Counsel who appears for Mutsaddi Lal made strenuous efforts to persuade the Court that if there have been irregularities which fall under Section 145, Clauses (4), (5), (o) and (7), Criminal Procedure Code, this Court can interfere. He says that there have been instances of single Judges of this Court holding this view. But he cannot point to me any Division Bench which held such a view. On the contrary the pronouncements of Division Benches of this Court have been in the opposite direction. The application is dismissed.