JUDGMENT Misra, J. - This is a criminal revision arising out of the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The foundation for these proceedings were the three reports made at the police station Utraula, district Gonda. The first report was made on the 16th September, 1942, Ex. A1, by Badri Chaukidar of village Kusanha, which is a hamlet of Narainpur Manjhari. It was stated therein that Indar Deo Singh wanted to take possession of plot No. 1591 (including the crop on it) of which he held a patta, and as his attempt to take possession was opposed by Tula Ram, a large number of village people had assembled, and there was thus an apprehension of a breach of the peace. On 20th September, 1942, at 9-30 a.m. a second report was made by Autar Chaukidar of Narainpur that there was a dispute between Jag Dutt and Mahadeo Brahman in respect of the crop standing on the disputed plot No. 1591, a report with regard to which was made on 16th September 1942. It was also stated that the Balrampur estate, which was the owner of the plot, had given a patta to one Surendra Bahadur Singh, the brother of Indardeo Singh, the Tahsildar of that estate. At 6 p.m. on the same date a third report was dictated by Kali Din, a Karinda of Jag Dutt, who was the Thekedar of Naubasta Mandila, and in this report it was said that a dispute had taken place between Kalidin and Mahadeo and others regarding the possession of the plot in question and its crop. It appears that plot No. 1591 was during the first and second settlements entered as forming part of village Narainpur Manjhari. Mahadeo and others were the under-proprietors of that village. It was, however, a mute question whether the plot appurtained to Narainpur Manjhari or to Naubasta Mandila. It had sometimes been entered in the khasras as being in possession of Jag Datt, who held the theka from the Balrampur estate of village Naubasta Mandila and sometimes in the name of Mahadeo and others the under-proprietors of Narainpur Manjhari. Matters came to a head in the recent settlement. It had sometimes been entered in the khasras as being in possession of Jag Datt, who held the theka from the Balrampur estate of village Naubasta Mandila and sometimes in the name of Mahadeo and others the under-proprietors of Narainpur Manjhari. Matters came to a head in the recent settlement. In 1940 during the settlement proceedings of village Naubasta Mandila the matter was throughly gone into by the Assistant Record Officer, and he eventually found that plot No. 1591, area 489 bighas, formed part of Naubasta Mandila and belonged to the Balrampure estate. No appeal was filed against the order of the Assistant Record Officer, but shortly afterwards during the settlement proceedings relating to Narainpur Manjhari Mahadeo and others again claimed that the plot in question must be included in that village and that they were in possession of it. The Assistant Record Officer carefully considered the entire position, and by his order, dated the 16th of June 1942, he arrived at the decision that the plot appurtained to village Naubasta Mandila and he ordered the correction of the village papers accordingly. He also found that Mahadeo was not proved to be in possession of the aforesaid plot Since 1349 Fasli therefore the plot was included in Naubasta Mandila and has ever since been entered in the name of Jag Dutt. There was an appeal against the decision of the 16th June, 1942, and at the time of the dispute, to which the three first information reports lodged at the police station Utraula related, the matter had not been finally decided by the appellate Court. The Sub-Inspector Police in charge of the Thana Utraula submitted a report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Utraula on the 20th of September, 1942, giving the details about the dispute regarding the crop and the land in question and pointed out that there was an apprehension of a breach of the peace. He accordingly recommended that proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure be started and crop be attached. On 25th September, 1942, finding that there' was danger of breach of peace a preliminary order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, for attachment of the crop, and the parties, that is Mahadeo and others on one side, and Jag Dutt Thekedar on the other, were asked to file their written statements. On 25th September, 1942, finding that there' was danger of breach of peace a preliminary order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, for attachment of the crop, and the parties, that is Mahadeo and others on one side, and Jag Dutt Thekedar on the other, were asked to file their written statements. The persons constituting the party of Mahadeo were not known till then, and the Sub-Inspector was asked to report on that matter. This report was drawn up by the Sub-Inspector on the 1st of October, 1942, in the presence of parties a list of 20 persons, who lay claim to the property in dispute, was given, and each one of these persons was impleaded in the proceedings u/s 145, Code Criminal Procedure. The case was, thereafter transferred to the Munsif Magistrate, who conducted the inquiry and arrived at the finding that Jag Dutt was in possession on the 25th of September, 1942, over plot No. 1521 and its crop, and that the attached, property was therefore ordered to be released in favour of Jag Dutt. Mahadeo and others went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Gonda, but as they were unsuccessful, they have now filed the present revision in this Court. 3. The argument, which has been advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the applicants when analysed, is based upon two grounds--(1) It is in the first place contended that the entire, proceedings are irregular and are vitiated by the fact that the persons between whom the real dispute took place had not been made parties to the inquiry. These persons, it is alleged, were Surendra Bahadur and Indar Deo Singh. They were the chief persons implicated in the report of Badri Chaukidar on the 16th of September, 1942. It is also urged that Balrampur estate, which was the actual claimant to the plot, ought also to have been made a party, being interested in the dispute. There were in addition, it is alleged, certain tenants of this plot. Some of them were produced as witnesses on behalf of the defence, and they ought it is said also to have been brought on the record in order to determine the individual rights of these persons. There were in addition, it is alleged, certain tenants of this plot. Some of them were produced as witnesses on behalf of the defence, and they ought it is said also to have been brought on the record in order to determine the individual rights of these persons. (2) It is in the second place argued that the finding of fact in respect of possesion of Jag Dutt has been reached without any consideration being given to some pattas which had been granted by Balrampur estate to Surendra Bahadur and others as shown by Ex. A3 and without further taking into account the two "report made by Badri and Autar Chaukidars. Further the fact that the order of the Assistant Record Officer, dated the 16th of June, 1942, was under appeal at the time when the preliminary order, dated the 25th of September, 1942, was passed was ignored, I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length, but I have come to the conclusion that the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants are not found. 4. In the proceedings two written statements were filed one by Jag Dutt, and the other by Mahadeo and other under-proprietors of village Narainpur Manjhari. They disclosed that while on the one hand Jag Dutt claimed that he was in possession of the plot in dispute as a Thekadar, Mahadeo and his group claimed on the other that they were themselves in possession thereof and that the crop belonged to them. From Autar's report dated 20th September it might be concluded that Surendra Bahadur was one of the persons included in Jag Dutt's group, probably because upon the basis of the patta which Balrampur estate had agreed to give him from 1350 Fasli he expected that the plot might eventually come into his possession. He had no present right to the crop and could not be regarded as the person with whom the dispute lay. Jat Dutt was the representative of Balrampur estate as its Thekedar. There was thus no necessity to implead either the Balrampur estate, or Surendra Bahadur as parties to these proceedings. As regards the alleged individual tenants it is to be noticed that they never set up any interest in themselves. On the contrary the case put forward in the written statement of Mahadeo and others was that the crop was their own. As regards the alleged individual tenants it is to be noticed that they never set up any interest in themselves. On the contrary the case put forward in the written statement of Mahadeo and others was that the crop was their own. The learned Munsif Magistrate upon a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the dispute regarding plot No. 1591 was between Jag Dutt and Mahadeo and that Surendra Bahadur or Indar Deo Singh were no parties to it. For his finding he relied upon the first information reports upon which the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were founded and upon the statement of D.W. 9, Sri Ram Singh. At its best what could be said was that Balrampur estate was also interested in the dispute in this manner that if Jag Dutt failed, the ultimate loss would be that of the estate. It is clear, however, that neither the Magistrate nor the police were called upon to make any inquiry as to persons who were directly or indirectly interested in the dispute and I am distinctly of opinion that failure to implead such persons did not vitiate the proceedings. I am unable to see how Mahadeo and his party have been in any manner injured by the omission, if omission it was, to implead the Balrampur estate or Surendra Bahadur and Inder Deo. Neither the estate nor these two other persons have made a complaint of it. The inquiry u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is in its nature a summary one, and Magistrates cannot be expected to wait till every possible interest is represented in the inquiry. It has been pointed out by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Krishna Kamini v. Abdul Jubbar (1903) 30 Cal. 155 (F.B.), that "Proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not without jurisdiction, because the Magistrate on information before him has made parties thereto only those actually in dispute and likely to cause a breach of the peace, although it is brought to his notice that another party is interested in the subject-matter of the dispute, nor is the Magistrate bound to stay such proceedings." 5. The Full Bench considered the previous cases of the Calcutta High Court including Laldhari Singh v. Sukdeo Narain Singh (1901) 27 Cal. 892 and Mangal Haldar v. Naimuddi Fakir (1902) 6 Cal. The Full Bench considered the previous cases of the Calcutta High Court including Laldhari Singh v. Sukdeo Narain Singh (1901) 27 Cal. 892 and Mangal Haldar v. Naimuddi Fakir (1902) 6 Cal. W.N. 101, which were relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Judges deliberately came to the conclusion which has been mentioned above. In Emperor Vs. Bhuneshar Prasad, AIR 1936 All 531 the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that-- "a claim merely to a right to possession would be outside the scope of the enquiry. It is therefore not necessary that all parties interested in or claiming a right to the property in dispute or entitled to it should be made parties to the proceedings. Hence where the dispute lies between the two rival lessees who claim to be in actual possession of certain land, and they alone are issued notices u/s 145, and not the co-sharers of the land, there is no defect in the proceedings. 7. he same view was taken in Jatan Singh v. Dukhia Singh AIR 1917 Pat. 264 and Mukhal Singh and Others Vs. Ramsarup Singh and Another, AIR 1917 Patna 435 . In AIR 1939 108 (Lahore) , it was held that-- "the essential requisite to give the Magistrate jurisdiction u/s 145 is that he should be satisfied that a dispute exists regarding land or water before he makes the preliminary order. Once he is so satisfied, his subsequent action relates to procedure and not jurisdiction and is in this respect not liable to be upset on revision by the High Court." 8. In Asharfi Lal v. Emperor 1944 O.A. 137 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 137 : O.W.N. 190, it was pointed out that-- "The object of procedure is to enable the Court to do justice but if inspite of even a total disregard of the rules of procedure, justice has been done, there would exist no necessity for setting aside the final order which is just and correct simply because the procedure adopted was wrong. So in a case of misjoinder of persons contrary to Section 239(e) Code of Criminal Procedure though it is an illegality and not a mere irregularity, it is yet curable by Section 537 Code of Criminal Procedure if it has in fact occasioned injustice." 9. The first contention must, therefore, be overruled. 10. So in a case of misjoinder of persons contrary to Section 239(e) Code of Criminal Procedure though it is an illegality and not a mere irregularity, it is yet curable by Section 537 Code of Criminal Procedure if it has in fact occasioned injustice." 9. The first contention must, therefore, be overruled. 10. The second argument, upon the basis of which the finding of possession reached by the trial Court is challenged, is also groundless. The argument is based, as has been noticed above upon an alleged failure to take into consideration (1) the fact that the pattas in respect of portions of plot No. 1591 had been given in September 1942 to three or four persons as shown by Ex. A3, (2) the reports of Badri and Autar, and (3) the fact that the last order of the Assistant Record Officer, dated the 16th of June, 1942 was under appeal. I am unable to see the relevancy of any of these three factors on the question of possession of Jag Dutt on the relevant date. It may be mentioned that the order of the 16th June, 1942, clearly was to the effect Jag Dutt was in actual possession of the plot in dispute, and though an appeal against that order was pending, I am informed by the learned Counsel for opposite-parties that the appeal has been dismissed. The fact of Jag Dutt's possession had been consistently recorded in the khasras ever since 1349 Fasli. The learned lower Court also considered the position of the two villages, as disclosed by the map and the locality, and it found that their situation negatived any likelihood of Mahadeo and his party being in possession of the aforesaid plot. The duty of weighing evidence regarding possession is one which is reserved purely for the trial Court in proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, and I do not consider that the decision arrived at in that behalf is in any manner vitiated upon any ground of law. 11. The learned Counsel for the applicants drew my attention to the fact that the trial Court refused to inspect the locality, though a request was made by both parties to do so, and it is said that this has occasioned considerable prejudice in the decision of the case. 11. The learned Counsel for the applicants drew my attention to the fact that the trial Court refused to inspect the locality, though a request was made by both parties to do so, and it is said that this has occasioned considerable prejudice in the decision of the case. The learned Munsif Magistrates in this connection observes as follows:-- "the evidence produced by the parties has inspired me with the belief that the first party was in possession of the land in dispute and the evidence produced by the second party has not presented the truth. It is, therefore, not necessary to inspect the locality." 12. I am of opinion that the trial Court was fully justified in refusing to undertake the journey for the purposes of the inspection, as in the circumstances it would have meant a mere waste of time. 13. The result is that the application fails and is dismissed.