JUDGMENT : Ryves, J. This is an application in revision against an order which purports to have been parsed under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a Magistrate of the first class of Azamgarh. The facts are somewhat peculiar. The first party and the second party are both members of a joint family and the first party has instituted a suit for partition of the joint family property against the second party and this suit is now pending. An order was passed by the learned District Judge of Azamgarh, on the 23rd of January, 1913, to provide for the possession and control of the property pending the decision of the case. The agent of the first party made an application to a Magistrate admitting that the land was joint and that the crops had been sowed with seed belonging to the joint family, but he stated that in spite of this fact the second party wished to take separate possession of it. He said that there might be a disturbance of the peace and he asked the Magistrate to practically order the police to have the crops harvested and to enforce the order of the District judge already referred to. On this application, the Magistrate took the statement of the petitioner and passed the order:— “Let action be taken under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.” He does not state in this order that he is satisfied that a dispute exists which is likely to cause a breach of the peace within his jurisdiction. As held by this Court in Behari Lal v. Chhajju, [1907] A.W.N., p. 49, a finding to this effect is a condition precedent to the Magistrate taking action under section 145 and until he does so find he has no jurisdiction to take any action under the section. The same view was held in Jhabba v. Dal Chand, Cr. Rev. No. 99 of 1912, decided by Chamter, J., on April 13th, 1912. There is a farther objection to this order, viz., that the Magistrate has himself found that the first party and the second party are both jointly entitled to the land. He cannot, therefore, hold that one of them is in possession to the exclusion of the other and so maintain that one party's possession. There is a farther objection to this order, viz., that the Magistrate has himself found that the first party and the second party are both jointly entitled to the land. He cannot, therefore, hold that one of them is in possession to the exclusion of the other and so maintain that one party's possession. If a breach of the peace is likely, he can take action under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Lastly, a suit is pending between the parties and the Civil Court has passed orders for the control and management of the property pendente lite. I allow the application and set aside the order of the Magistrate.