(1.) THE petitioner questions the validity of an order passed by the Magistrate refusing to put the petitioner in possession of a disputed land, which was the subject matter of a dispute in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code on the grounds that (1) the Court had "no seisin over the case" as such, it had no jurisdiction to make any order amending, adding or altering the final order which had been passed; and (2) this Court in Criminal Reference No. 25 of 1974 disposed of on 5 -6 -77 directed the parties to seek redress in Civil Court,
(2.) MR . N. M. Dam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is a reversible one, as the Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law, vide Section 145 (6), Criminal Procedure Code
(3.) The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the points raised by the counsel for the petitioner may be summarised as follows: -