Judgment :- 1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the Division First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, attaching certain properties concerned in a case relating to dispute as to possession. The relevant provision enabling a Court taking cognisance of such disputes to effect an attachment of the property concerned is contained in the second proviso to sub-s. (4) of S.143 Criminal Procedure Code (Travancore) and it reads:- "Provided also, that if the Magistrate considers the case one of emergency, he may at any time attach the subject of dispute, pending his decision under this section." In the case before me the proceeding under S.143 was initiated on a report from the Inspector of Police having jurisdiction over the village where the property lies and that report stated that to prevent a breach of the peace between the contending parties attachment of the property was necessary as an emergency measure and the Magistrate accordingly passed the order for attachment when he passed the necessary preliminary order under S.143. In fact the order for attachment forms part of the preliminary order itself. The question whether there is a state of emergency or not is a matter within the Magistrate's discretion to decide and a Court of revision will not be justified in lightly interferring with it. I cannot therefore persuade myself to hold that the order for attachment should be vacated. I do not know on what material I am expected to say that there is no state of emergency. Sub-s. (1) of S.143 enables a court empowered to initiate proceedings under that section to take action upon the strength of a Police report. Thee is no substance in the contention that the Magistrate acted without the necessary data. 2. The cases cited at the Bar lend no support to the petitioner's contention. In the decision in AIR 1926 Lah. 205 the very order for attachment made it clear that it was passed for the purpose of avoiding future litigation in respect of the right to the produce of the land in dispute and not with a view to prevent any imminent breach of peace. In the two Travancore decisions referred to by the petitioner's Counsel the High Court proceeded on the basis that there was no evidence of any emergency calling for the attachment of the property in dispute. In the two Travancore decisions referred to by the petitioner's Counsel the High Court proceeded on the basis that there was no evidence of any emergency calling for the attachment of the property in dispute. Each case must be decided on its own facts and in view of what I have stated about with reference to this case those decisions are of no help to the petitioner. 3. For the foregoing reasons I would dismiss this revision petition, but in so doing I give a direction to the Magistrate to see that the persons in actual occupation of the buildings on the disputed property are not turned out by the Receiver. It is not very clear from the preliminary order whether the buildings have also been attached or whether they also form the subject of the dispute. Whatever that be by way of caution I make the above direction as in my view the justice of the case demands it. Petition dismissed.