XI-HC-22 M; $3: HGN’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRAJ. Shli Aail Minhaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.K. Beriwél, Dy. Aiv, General for the respondent No. 2. ‘2. The petitioner by this pe tition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has prayed for setting aside the order dated 21—3-2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 63/2 06 whereby learned Sessions Judge, Raipur has ailowed the revis' n preferred by respondent No. 1 and set aside the order of ,a hment of the disputed property of Annexure A-5 passed by the b Divisional Officer, Raipur dated 7-2- 2006. :5: Learned Counsel for i e petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Odicer after calling report from the concerned police station and after recording satisfaction that there is a dispute between the parties with respect to the possession of the disputed shop, which may cause breach of peace, passed the order of attachment under Section 146(1) of Cr.P.C. however learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of attachment only on the gmund that l / APPLICANT Prashant Davc, S/o Late Shri Durga Shankar, aged about 40 yeam, R/o Pandn', Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Smt. Shakuntla Devi, WI o Late Shri a 1' Raval Das Nagravi, aged about 53 yeaxs, R/o (present) Near TV Tower, Shaeker Nagar, Raipur (CG) 2. The Coliector, Raipur, Distt, Raipur 3 2440-2607“ ' (CG) petitioner, his application for grant of in the civii suit filed bV the temporary injunction has b€en rejected. It was contended that the pendency of the civil suit end refusal of temporary injunction can not be a ground to set asiderth under Section 145 of the CnF 4. ~ I have heard learned C( the impugned order. impungt 3. From perusal of the inn on an apph'bation under Sect the Sub Divisional Officer dir with respect to possession of petitioner dled the civil suit and prayed for temporary injunction, which was rejected by the Co urt after hearing the parties. Afteribeing unsuccessful in obtaining temporary injunction from Civil Court, an application for attachment was nled and thereafter the order of attachment was passed by 6. Learned Sessions Jud e considering the above facts and after appreciating the argument advanced by the respective parties passed a well reasoned or er. There is no illegality, innrmity or jurisdictional error committe by the Sessions Judge, which calls for interference in exercise of ursidction vested to this Court under Sub Divisional Officer. e order of attachment in a proceeding '.C. )unsel for the petitioner. l have perused ‘d punged order, it is evident that initially on 145 of Cr.P.C. iiled by the petitioner, ected the parties to maintain status quo the disputed property and thereafter the ii 7 Section 482 of CLRC. l/n ‘7. The petition is dismiss Sdl- Misma ‘ Dhirendl‘a ' ; Judge [11%W