1. ' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arising out of proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 deserve to be disposed of in view of the judgment of even date in Civil Revision No,2486 of 2004 inasmuch as the law on the subject is fairly settled. In Shah Muhammad v. Haq Nawaz and another (PLD 1970 SC 470) it was held that "it becomes apparent at once that the proceedings initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C. Are subordinate to a decree or order passed by a Civil Court in respect of the property in dispute before the Magistrate". In the judgment dated 17-6-2002 in C.P.L.A. No,1806-L of 2000 it was held by their lordships "it is well-settled that once a Civil Court is seized of a dispute with regard to possession of an immovable property and has passed an interim order regulating the possession with respect to such property, no Criminal Court shall exercise jurisdiction under section 145 or section 146, Cr.P.C. Civil Court, being the Court of ultimate jurisdiction is always vested with powers to decide all disputes of civil nature between the parties and the preventive proceedings before the Magistrate are always subject to the decision by a Civil Court. In a case in hand, learned Civil Judge had passed a specific order protecting the possession of petitioner-Mst.
2. Safia Rehmat, who claimed to be in possession of two rooms in the property by passing an injunctive order against the defendants. This order was in operation, when respondent-Mian Inamul Haq, not a party to the suit, without joining the proceedings before the Civil Court, invoked the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrate First Class and succeeded in obtaining an order of attachment of the property in violation of the settled law. Prima facie, Magistrate should have acted with care and circumspection on his A part after coming to know that dispute was already sub judice before the Court of competent jurisdiction and refrained from passing a contradictory and conflicting order as he lacked jurisdiction in the given circumstances. Alternatively; best course for the Magistrate was to refer the dispute to the Civil Court, instead of assuming the jurisdiction and adding to the agony of the parties. Reference may be made to Shah Muhammad v.
3. Haq Nawaz and another (PLD 1970 SC 470), Shah Muhammad v. State (1983 SCM R 1173) and Abdul Razzaq v. Barkat Ali (1985 SCM R 1235).
4. ' In such view of the legal position obtaining in the matter, this petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.