JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Preliminary order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was passed on 19-2-965. Parties were directed to appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 26-2-1965 and to put in their respective claims as to the fact of their actual possession of the land in dispute. It is to be noted that the preliminary order did not require the parties to put any documents or to adduce, by putting affidavits, evidence of such persons as they rely upon in support of such claim as prescribed in Section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The order-sheet does not show that the case was put up on 26-2-1965. In the order-sheet the next date is 2-3-1965. On that day, the parties were present and on their application the case was adjourned to 5-4-1965. The order passed on that day may be extracted Advocate for 1st party files written statement and 2nd party absent on call. Case to 3-5.1965. Parties informed. The underlined expression has been scored through and initialed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. Later in the day, he passed the following order 2nd party files written statement. Case transferred to the file of Shri A.A. Khan, Magistrate, First Class, for disposal according to law. On the very day, Sri Khan passed the following order Case taken to file on transfer. Register. Let the parties file affidavits and documents by 15-4-1995. On that day, 1st party was absent on call. 2nd party filed documents and affidavits. 1st party was directed to file affidavits and documents by 23-4-1965. On that day 1st party was also absent on repeated calls and the 2nd party was present. The case was adjourned to 24-6-1965 when the final order u/s 145(6), Code of Criminal Procedure was passed in favour of the second party, declaring them to be entitled to possession of the suit land until evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbidding all disturbances of such possession until such eviction. On 3-5-1965, an application was filed by the first party alleging that all orders subsequent to the first order passed on 5-4-1965 till 24-4-1965 (both dates inclusive) were passed behind his back and without any intimation to him, and as such, the final order dated 24-4-1965 was without jurisdiction and a nullity and could be ignored. From 7-5-1965 tin 25-6-1965 witnesses for the first party were examined. From 7-5-1965 tin 25-6-1965 witnesses for the first party were examined. On 25-6-1965 notice was issued to the second party. From 15-7-1905 both parties were present. Second party took part in the arguments but did not make any prayer to the Court for cross-examining the witnesses of the first party or to adduce defence evidence. On 28-7-1965 the learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the first party holding that he had no jurisdiction to set aside the final order dated 24-4-1965 passed u/s 145(6), Criminal Procedure Code. On the question of fact, however, he decided in favour of the first party thus From the order dated 5-4-1965, the date 3-5-1965 has been scored through and the case transferred to me. So there is strong reason to believe that 1st party is quite unaware of the case transferred to my Court on 5-4-1965 as by that time he had left the Court with the information that the case was posted to 3-5-1965. Against the order of the learned Magistrate the criminal revision is filed. 2. The only contention urged by Mr. Mohapatra is that on the learned Magistrate's own finding that the first party was ignorant of all orders beginning from the later part of 5-4-1965 till 24-4-1965, committed an illegality in not holding that the order dated 24-4-1965 was without jurisdiction and a nullity and could be ignored by him. Mr. misra besides combating the aforesaid proposition contended that the second party members' were given no opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses of the first party and for adducing evidence to establish that the member of the first party was aware of the order passed on the later part of the day on 5-4-1965 and absented himself deliberately. 3. Mr. Misra's contention that the members of the second party were not given opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses of the first party and for adducing evidence cannot be accepted. Doubtless till 25-6-1965, notice had not been issued to the second party on the application of the first party filed on 3-5-1965. The members of the second party appeared on 15-7-1965. But they did not file any objection to the statement of facts made in the petition of the first party. They also did not ask for any opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses of the first or for adducing evidence. The members of the second party appeared on 15-7-1965. But they did not file any objection to the statement of facts made in the petition of the first party. They also did not ask for any opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses of the first or for adducing evidence. On the contrary, they took part in the argument which was heard on 15-7-1965 and 17-7-1967. Conclusion is irresistible that the members of the second party thought it best not to challenge the case of the first party that the order passed Later in the day on 5-4.1965 and the orders subsequent thereto including the order passed on 24-4-1965 were passed behind the back of the member of the first party and without his knowledge. The conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate on fact is unassailable. 4. Two questions loom large for examination in this case: (i) Whether the final order u/s 145(6), Criminal Procedure Code passed on 24-6-1965 is without jurisdiction and a nullity; and (ii) If so, can the learned Magistrate himself ignore such order and proceed with the case from the stage from which the member of the first party had no notice? 5. No adverse order can be passed against a party without its knowledge and without giving full opportunity of being heard. The facts in Achambit Mandal Vs. Mahatab Singh. were these: On 12-12-13 a complaint was made by the Petitioner against a certain number of persons. The date of hearing fixed by he Magistrate was 16-1-114. Through some take or over-sight on the part of the Magistrate's Peskar, the case was called on for hearing on 10th January, that is, six days before the date actually fixed for hearing. On that date, the complainant was absent. The Magistrate passed an order acquitting the accused u/s 247, Criminal Procedure Code. On 16-1-1964 the case was again called and the take that was made on 10th January was discovered. The Magistrate ignored his own order of acquittal passed on 10th January and went on with the case. Ultimately the case ended in conviction. The accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge who held that the Magistrate by his order of acquittal dated 10-1-1914 debarred himself from trying the accused. The conviction and sentence were set aside and accused were acquitted. Ultimately the case ended in conviction. The accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge who held that the Magistrate by his order of acquittal dated 10-1-1914 debarred himself from trying the accused. The conviction and sentence were set aside and accused were acquitted. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court quashed the order of the Sessions Judge and held that the order of the Magistrate passing the order of acquittal on 10-1-1914 was - without jurisdiction and a nullity, and that the Magistrate could ignore the order and go on with the case. The Calcutta case is directly applicable to the facts of this case. It does not make any difference in principle merely because the Calcutta case is one relating to trial of an offend and this case is a proceeding u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code. 6. In Krushna Mohan and Others Vs. Sudhakar Das and Others, ., a Bench of this Court held that even though there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure recognizing existence of inherent powers in subordinate Criminal Courts as the High Court has u/s 561.A, Criminal Procedure Code, their have limited inherent powers and in exercise of those powers, they may review or revise their orders for the ends of justice, except in those cases where the Code itself, either expressly or by necessary implication, prohibit such review of revision and confers on .the order some kind of finality until it is set side by superior Courts in appeal or revision. In deciding whether a Magistrate can invoke his inherent jurisdiction to ignore an order passed u/s 145(6), the main question to consider is whether that order is a nullity as having been passed without jurisdiction or not. If it is a nullity, cause the Magistrate can invoke his inherent powers and ignore and same. In that particular case, their Lordships held that the final order u/s 145(6) could not be reviewed as the first party was duly served with notice and entered appearance, but subsequently absented. Thus if a party has notice and by its voluntary action dissociates from the proceeding, the order passed by the Magistrate-whether ex parte or on contest-cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or a nullity. Thus if a party has notice and by its voluntary action dissociates from the proceeding, the order passed by the Magistrate-whether ex parte or on contest-cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or a nullity. But where a party has no notice or, after he ad notice, certain orders were passed behind his back, then such orders are without jurisdiction and are nullities. 7. This Court had examined in Siba v. Kilash Chandra Jena 31 C.L.T. 37, the character of such orders passed by the High Court with reference to proceedings in appeal in the High Court-without service of notice. The principle discussed therein and the ultimate conclusion reached have full application to this case. It was observed therein: The principle of law can be formulated as that though there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court to hear the appeal without giving notice prescribed u/s 422, Criminal Procedure Code, the jurisdiction to hear an appeal cannot be exercised without fulfilling the essential condition precedent which constitutes in effecting service of notice as required u/s 422, Criminal Procedure Code. In the words of the Supreme Court, hearing of same appeal without service of notice would amount to non-compliance of essential preliminary to the hearing of the appeal resulting in material defect in the procedure relating to the hearing of the appeal. From this dictum the conclusion is irresistible that all the proceedings in the appeal subsequent to non-service of notice consisting in hearing of the appeal and delivery of judgment in consequence thereof are without jurisdiction. Such judgments are nullities and can be ignored even in the very proceedings and not necessarily in collateral proceedings. This conclusion has full application to cases decided by Subordinate Criminal Courts. They have inherent powers to ignore their own orders, passed without jurisdiction, and to proceed with the case. 8. On the application of the aforesaid tests, the orders passed from 15-4-1965 to 24-5-1965 (both days inclusive) are without jurisdiction and nullities and can be ignored. The learned Magistrate failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him and his order dated 28-7-1965 must be quashed. Parties must be given full opportunities to file their documents and affidavits, as required u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure and the case should be disposed of in accordance with law from that stage. The learned Magistrate failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him and his order dated 28-7-1965 must be quashed. Parties must be given full opportunities to file their documents and affidavits, as required u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure and the case should be disposed of in accordance with law from that stage. The disputed property would be kept under attachment as was directed in the preliminary order and the previous arrangement for its management would continue. 9. In the result, the order dated 28-7-1965 is quashed and the revision is allowed. The case is remanded to the learned Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law and the observations made above. As the case has been long delayed, it should be disposed of within two months from the date of the Receipt of the record, which should be despatched forthwith. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed