ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - This is a criminal reference by the learned Addl. Distt. Magistrate (J) Mathura and it arises under the following circumstances. 2. The Zila Parishad Mathura filed an application against Sarnam Singh and ten others in the court of the SDM Sadabad, praying that, on the facts and for the reasons mentioned in that application, action u/s 145 or Section 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure might be taken against them. The learned SDM called for a police report and after satisfying him-elf that there was an apprehension of breach of peace between the parties regarding possession of the some plots of land mentioned in that application, passed a preliminary order u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and pending its decision directed the attachment of the subject matter of dispute. Notice of this preliminary order was served on both the parties and they were ordered to file their written statements etc. as required under that section. During the pendency of those proceedings one Ramji Lal Gautam, alleging himself to be the Manager of Friend's Society, moved an application before the learned SDM Sadabad stating that as he was a 'person interested' in the subject of dispute within the meaning of Section 145(5) Code of Criminal Procedure, he might also be made a party to those proceedings. The learned SDM after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties allowed the application by his order dated 10-3-1965. The Zila Parishad Mathura preferred an application in revision against that order in the court of the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (J) Mathura and the latter opining that Ramji Lal Gautam was not a person interested within the meaning of Section 145 (5) Code of Criminal Procedure, made the aforesaid reference with the recommendation that the order of the learned SDM dated 10-3-1965 be quashed and he be directed to proceed with, the hearing of the case in accordance with law. 3. 3. From the narrative given above, it is clear that the sole point falling for consideration in this reference is whether Ramji Lal Gautam can be held to be an 'person interested' within the meaning; of Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if so, whether his interest is confined only to showing that no such dispute as alleged by the Zila Parishad Mathura exists, or he can also agitate the question of his alleged possession over the subject of dispute. The record of the ca se shows that the application of the Zila Parishad Mathura u/s 145/107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the court of SDM Sadabad on 5-2-1965, along; with a police report supporting 'the Applicants' allegations about the apprehension of breach of peace. The same day the learned SDM ordered that application to be listed on the following day and on the latter day he pleased the preliminary order, as also the order directing the attachment of the disputed properly, mentioned above. It does not appear how Ramji Lal Gautam got information 'about these proceedings, but the record shows that on 23-2-1965, he moved an application before the learned SDM stating that he was the Manager of the Friends' Society, which had full right, title, interest in and was in exclusive possession of, the plots mentioned in the preliminary order, he was, therefore, a 'person interested' in the instant proceedings and was entitled to be impleaded as' a party thereto. As in this application Ramji Lal Gautam, besides asserting the right, title and interest of the Friends Society in the plots mentioned in the preliminary order, further claimed that the latter was also in exclusive possession of the same, he is clearly a 'person interested' in the subject of dispute and has the right to have his claim on the basis of actual possession considered in these proceedings. To hold otherwise might in cases, like the present case, lead to the incongruous position that the person actually in possession of the subject of dispute might be kept out of asserting his right in a Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding by the simple 'device of not making him a party to them.' In this connection the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure, which require a copy of the preliminary order to be affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute are not without some importance. This requirement, be it noted, is in addition to the requirement of personal service of the a id order on the disputants and appears clearly to have been provided, so that even persons who are not parties to those proceedings but have an interest on the basis of their actual possession of the disputed property, may payable to come forward and take part is those proceedings under pain of being bound by the decision therein. Thus the view taken by the learned Addl. Distt. Magistrate (J) is incorrect and can not be sustained. 4. On behalf of the Zila Parishad Mathura reliance was placed upon a number of cases and in particular, upon the Full Bench decision in Krishna Kamini v. Abdul Jabbar ILR 30 Cal. 155 FB. This decision, however far from bearing out the Zila Parishad's contention lends support to the view taken by me above. It was held in that case that: The words, 'parties concerned, in such dispute' are intended to indicate all persons claiming to be in' possession at the time of the initial order Under Clause (1) Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. and further that, Upto the time the enquiry begins the parties may be added. The decision then went oh to differentiate a claim merely to a right to possession, (i.e. a claim based on title) from a claim to be in possession (i.e. a claim based on actual possession) and held, that while the former fell outside the scope of the inquiry u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure the latter fell within it. 5. The decision then went oh to differentiate a claim merely to a right to possession, (i.e. a claim based on title) from a claim to be in possession (i.e. a claim based on actual possession) and held, that while the former fell outside the scope of the inquiry u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure the latter fell within it. 5. As the learned SDM in the present case directed the addition of Ramji Lal Gautam as an opposite-party to the proceedings before the enquiry began, presumably because he also' asserted the exclusive possession of the Friends' Society over the subject of dispute his order is in consonance with the view expressed above and must be upheld. 6. In the other decisions which were relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Zila Parishad Mathura, the claims which arose for consideration were based not on actual possession but on title it was held that the latter kind of claim did not fall for investigation in an enquiry u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also impliedly held in those cases that a person who came to the court on the basis of his naked title only could not be regarded as a 'person interested' in the proceedings. Consequently those decisions are of no avail to the Applicant. 7. Thus for the reasons stated above, I am unable to accept the reference and recommendation made by the learned Addl. District Magistrate (J), Mathura. I therefore, reject them and direct the Magistrate to proceed with the hearing of the case, in accordance with the law and the observations made above. The record shall be seat down to the court below as expeditiously as possible so that the hearing of the case may be resumed there at an early date.