ORDER 1. We think, that in the state of facts which are founded in this case the possession of the Receiver appointed on the 4th April 1909, may, for the purpose of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, be properly regarded as possession on behalf of the party who should ultimately be found by the Magistrate to be in possession immediately before the 4th April, just as, for purposes of limitation, the possession of the Receiver is held to be the possession of the party entitled to possession, Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Isakapalli Subbiah 26 MP. 410 and Joyanti Kumar Mookerjee v. Middleton 27 C.P 785 : 4. C.W.N. 562. 2. To hold otherwise would be to hold that neither of the parties nor the Receiver is in possession and this would lead to the very scramble for possession and probable breach of peace which it is the purpose of the law to prevent. We must, therefore, dismiss this petition.