1. This is a reference under Section 438, Cr. P. Code, by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahasu. The reference relates to an order passed by a first class Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. The proceeding was started by Sadh against Balak Ram, Mathu and two others. The revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge on which the present reference has been made was filed by only Balak Ram and Mathu. The two latter are absent despite notice to their counsel. Only Sadh is present. The reference is however misconceived.
2. It appears that after holding an inquiry as prescribed by Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate concerned issued an order declaring Sadh to be entitled to possession of the land in question until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbade all disturbance of such possession until such eviction. He further ordered that possession of the land be restored to Sadh. As stated above, two of the opposite parties, Balak Ram and Mathu, filed a revision to the Sessions Judge on 27-2-1953. On an adjourned date of hearing of the revision, a compromise was filed before the Sessions Judge by the parties whereunder it was agreed that the land in question will remain in possession of Balak Ram and Mathu, and that Sadh shall have nothing to do with the land unless and until he pays its price to Balak Ram Mathu.
The learned Sessions Judge has made the reference with the recommendation that the order of the Magistrate be vacated and the terms of the compromise given effect to. This Court as a Court of revision will only interfere with the order of the Magistrate on any of the grounds on which such interference may be permissible, provided an allegation to that effect is made by any party. That is not the case here. The order passed by the Magistrate or the proceedings before him have not been challenged by any party. That being so, there is no occasion for this Court to exercise its revisional powers. This Court has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that may have happened between the parties subsequent to the passing of the order by the Magistrate, especially when that subsequent happening has no relation whatsoever to the Magistrate's order or the proceedings before him leading up to the passing of the order. The learned Sessions Judge seems apparently to be under the impression that the subsequent compromise can alter the terms of the Magistrate's order as possibly a civil Court decree may be.
3. The reference is rejected, and the case issent back to the learned Sessions Judge with direction to dispose of the revision pending beforehim in accordance with the law.