Varma, J.

1. This petition is against an order under S. 144, Criminal P.C., made against the present petitioner who was the first party before the Subdivisional Magistrate of Jehanabad. On 24th November 1934 notices were issued against both the parties restraining them from going into the disputed plot and to show cause, if any, by 6th December 1934. The parties showed cause on 6th December but the Magistrate passed the order against which the present petitioner has moved this Court.

2. It would be clear on the authority of the case reported in Thomson v. Emperor, (1909) 4 I C 590 - 11 Cri L J 12 that the period of 60 days begins to run from the date on which the notices are issued. Therefore by to-day the 60 days have expired. Although in certain cases where the High Courts found that the party against whom the order was passed was seriously prejudiced, they interfered with the order under S. 144, Criminal P.C., even after the expiry of the period of 60 days. But in this case on the materials before me I am not in a position to hold that the case is such as to call for the interference of this Court after the expiry of 60 days. Reading the judgment of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Jehanabad it seems that the dispute is with regard to the possession of a plot of land No. 2776 in village Kamta. Both the parties have filed documents and were content to make their submissions through their pleaders. In a case of this kind where the dispute is with regard to possession of immovable property a proceeding under S. 144, Criminal P.C., is a poor substitute for a proceeding under S. 145 which settles once for all, so far as the Criminal Courts are concerned, the question of possession with regard to a particular piece of immovable property. Although I am not prepared to interfere or set aside the order under S. 144 as if; has spent itself, I am clearly of opinion that in case any future dispute arises, this case should be decided under S. 145. The application is dismissed.