Jagat Narayan, J.
1. These are two connected cases. The facts, which have given rise to them, are these :
2. Rugga brought a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector, Nawa, for a permanent injunction restraining Ratna, Moona and others from interfering with his possession over the northern half of field known as Pancholiawala consisting of plots Nos. 293 and 294 on 21-6-1956. On the same day the Assistant Collector granted a temporary injunction in favour of Rugga, which was confirmed on 28-6-1956. Against this order Ratna filed an appeal on 3-7-1956, to the Additional Commissioner, who stayed the operation of the order of temporary injunction.
3. On 5-9-1956 Rugga filed an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the same field against Ratna, Moona and others in the Court of the Magistrate on the allegation that there was an apprehension of breach of peace taking place as the opposite party was trying to dispossess him on account of the fact that the operation of the order of temporary injunction had been stayed. The Magistrate was satisfied that there was an immediate apprehension of breach of peace, and he ordered attachment of the field. After an enquiry he held on 20-11-1956 that Ratna, Moona and others were in possession. He accordingly released the field in their favour, and forbade Rugga from interfering with their possession till they were evicted by a competent court.
4. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by Ratna against the order of temporary injunction on 23-4-1957. His order was upheld by the Board of Revenue by its decision dated 5-8-1957.
5. On 12-8-1957, Ratna filed Writ Petition No. 109 of 1957 against the order of the Board of Revenue on the ground that he and other members of his party having been put into possession by the order of the criminal court, the order of temporary injunction should have been set aside. Rugga filed criminal revision No. 152 of 1957 against the final order passed by the Magistrate on 20-11-1956.
6. So far as criminal revision No. 152 of 1957 is concerned, we are of the opinion that as a suit in the revenue court was already proceeding about the field in dispute, the Magistrate should not have proceeded to enquire into the factum of possession. The suit was for a permanent injunction, and both the questions of possession and of title were in issue in that suit. In a case like this, the Magistrate should have proceeded, after attaching the field as provided in the later part of Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C., namely, that he should have referred the matter to the revenue court for decision, as a suit was already pending there, in which both the questions of title and of possession were to be decided.
7. We accordingly set aside tbe order of the Magistrate dated 20-11-1956, directing the release of the field in favour of Moona, Ratna, and others. We direct that the Magistrate should attach the field again. He should appoint the receiver so that the land is cultivated till the revenue suit is decided. The proceeds shall be paid to the successful party on the termination of the revenue suit. The possession shall also be delivered to the party succeeding in the suit.
8. So far as the writ petition is concerned, inview of the order passed in the criminal case, theorder of temporary injunction issued by the revenueCourt is of no effect, and it has consequently become infructuous. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we directthat the parties shall bear their own costs of the writpetition.