Possession reference under CrPC: Magistrate must follow the civil court's finding, with no fresh hearing or collateral interference.

Section 146(1B) requires the Magistrate to pass the final order strictly in conformity with the civil court's finding on possession, so no fresh hearing before the Magistrate is necessary when the parties have already been heard before the Magistrate and the civil court. The civil court's reference to an earlier date did not vitiate its finding, because the operative basis remained possession on the relevant date and collateral interference was barred in these proceedings. Adding an omitted concerned party after the preliminary order did not invalidate the proceedings where notice and opportunity to be heard were given. A separate plot-wise finding between opposite parties was also unnecessary on these facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate was bound to hear the parties again before passing the final order under Section 146(1B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) Whether the civil court's finding was vitiated by taking an incorrect relevant date for determining possession under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (iii) Whether the proceedings were invalid because opposite party No. 4 was brought on record after the preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (iv) Whether the absence of a separate finding as to which opposite party possessed which portion of the disputed land affected the validity of the order.

Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate was bound to hear the parties again before passing the final order under Section 146(1B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The reference to the civil court under Section 146 was made because the Magistrate could not decide possession on the materials before him. The civil court then heard both sides and gave its finding on possession. Under Section 146(1B), the Magistrate was required to dispose of the proceeding strictly in conformity with that finding and had no discretion to vary it. Since the parties had already been heard before the Magistrate and fully before the civil court, a further hearing before the Magistrate was not required by natural justice or by the scheme of the section.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was not required to hear the parties again before passing the final order.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil court's finding was vitiated by taking an incorrect relevant date for determining possession under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The relevant date for deciding possession under Section 145(4) is the date of the preliminary order, subject to the statutory exception regarding recent dispossession. The record showed that the civil court's reference to the earlier date was only part of the recital of facts and not the basis of its determination. The finding itself was that the opposite parties were in possession at the relevant time. Even if the civil court had erred on the relevant date, Section 146(1D) barred revisional interference with the civil court's finding after the Magistrate had acted upon it, and any challenge lay only in a regular civil suit.

Conclusion: The finding of the civil court was not vitiated on the ground of wrong relevant date and was not open to interference in these proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings were invalid because opposite party No. 4 was brought on record after the preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: Section 145 contemplates the inclusion of all persons concerned in the dispute relating to the land. If, after the preliminary order, it appears that another concerned party has not been named, that party may be impleaded and given an opportunity to file written statements, documents and affidavits. Here, opposite party No. 4 was brought on record, notice was issued, and the party was heard before enquiry. The addition of that party therefore did not invalidate the proceedings, and in the circumstances it was treated as effective from the date of the preliminary order.

Conclusion: The impleadment of opposite party No. 4 did not vitiate the proceedings.

Issue (iv): Whether the absence of a separate finding as to which opposite party possessed which portion of the disputed land affected the validity of the order.

Analysis: The dispute related to possession over the entire set of plots claimed by the first party, while the opposite parties asserted possession in the disputed plots through connected interests. The decisive question before the civil court was whether the first party or the opposite parties were in possession at the relevant time. A separate finding allocating distinct portions among the opposite parties was unnecessary on the facts. The finding that the first party had no possession and the opposite parties were in possession was sufficient.

Conclusion: The absence of a separate plot-wise finding among the opposite parties did not affect the validity of the order.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the Magistrate's order passed in conformity with the civil court's finding, and the rule was discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 146(1B) requires the Magistrate to act strictly in conformity with the civil court's finding on possession, the Magistrate has no discretion to rehear the parties or depart from that finding, and the finding is not revisable in collateral proceedings except by a regular civil suit.

---