JUDGMENT : RAFIQ, J. This is an application for revision challenging an order of the Joint Magistrate of Jaunpur which purports to have been passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that as early as February, 1912, a dispute arose between the Muhammadans of Karakat and Bajnath and others regarding the burial of Muhammadan corpses in certain ground, to which Baijnath and others laid a claim as owners under a recent purchase. Several complaints under section 297, Penal Code, 1860, were filed on behalf of the Muhammadans and they were disposed of by Pandit Janardan Joshi, Deputy Magistrate, with the order that the complainants should go and establish their right of burying their dead in the ground in dispute in the Civil Court. Sometime in June, 1912, an attempt was made by the Muhammadans of the village to bury a corpse in the land in question, but they were opposed by Baijnath and others. The dispute threatened to end in a breach of the peace and the police asked for orders from the. District Magistrate. The latter directed the police to disperse the unlawful assembly and ordered one of his subordinate Magistrates to institute proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings were accordingly started and Baijnath and his friends were described as party No. 1, and the Mussalmans as party No. 2. Both parties filed written statements claiming the ownership and possession of the land in dispute, party No. 2 stating that the said land was wakf and was used as burial ground. During the pendency of the proceedings the second party filed an application on the 2nd of November, 1912, stating that the real dispute between them and the first party related to the burial of dead bodies and not to the ownership and possession of the land in dispute. The second party, therefore, prayed the Magistrate to consider the proceedings as proceedings under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate rejected their application. The second party came up in revision to this Court and the order of the Magistrate was upheld. By the time the record of the case had been returned to Jaunpur a new Magistrate had come into office. Mr. The Magistrate rejected their application. The second party came up in revision to this Court and the order of the Magistrate was upheld. By the time the record of the case had been returned to Jaunpur a new Magistrate had come into office. Mr. Mehta, the Joint Magistrate, took up the case and without receiving any further evidence, closed the proceedings and made an order that the second party should not interfere with the possession of the first party and that the latter should rail off certain mounds which were alleged to be graves. Both parties were left to seek their remedies in the Civil Court. The second party has come up in revision to this Court. It is contended on their behalf that the learned Joint Magistrate was not justified in closing the proceedings under section 145 arbitrarily and issue an order under that section to the prejudice of the applicants. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the first party to the effect that no revision lies from the order of the Joint Magistrate. The learned counsel for the first party relies on the case of Debi Prasad v. Shib Dat Rai, [1907] I.L.R., 30 All., 41 in support of his contention. In that case the learned Chief Justice remarked as follows:—“It would certainly be well that all Magistrates, proceeding under section 145 should, in all cases, strictly comply with the various provisions of the section and if I could find that the applicants here had been in the smallest way prejudiced by an omission to comply with the provisions of the section, I should feel bound to set aside the order complained of.” In the present case the contention for the applicants is that a revision does lie from an order under section 145 where the order is made without jurisdiction and to the prejudice of the applicants. It is said that the learned Joint Magistrate excluded the evidence of the applicants and passed an order which prevents them from burying their dead in the ground in dispute. I think that the present application is entertainable even on the authority of Debi Prasad v. Shib Dat Rai. The learned Joint Magistrate seems to have disposed of the proceedings pending before him on certain facts, which came to his knowledge privately. I think that the present application is entertainable even on the authority of Debi Prasad v. Shib Dat Rai. The learned Joint Magistrate seems to have disposed of the proceedings pending before him on certain facts, which came to his knowledge privately. The order that he made purports to have been made under section 145 and he could not make such an order without complying with all the provisions of the section. Under clause (4) of section 145 the learned Joint Magistrate was bound to receive and record all the evidence that the parties wanted to produce. He gave no opportunity, to the applicants to produce their evidence. They were obviously prejudiced by the action of the learned Joint Magistrate. It is, however, suggested on behalf of the other side that considering the length of time during which the dispute has been pending, the order of the Joint Magistrate should be allowed to stand and the parties can go to the Civil Court to have their rights determined. It is said that after all the interference by this Court on the re-visional side is a matter of discretion and this is not a case in which the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicants. I think that under the peculiar circumstances of this case and considering that feelings are running high between the parties and that the applicants have already been prevented from burying their dead for the last two years, the order of the Magistrate should be maintained. The applicants can seek their remedy by a civil suit and would have got it by this time, had they carried out the direction given in the early part of last year. The application is rejected.