JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - Second party members 2 to 6 are the Petitioners. The first party member filed an information before the police on 12-1-1965 alleging that on 11-1-1965 the second party members dispossessed them. Again they filed a complaint fore the S.D.O. on 30-4-1965 stating that they were dispossessed by the members of the second party on 28-4-1965. The learned Magistrate sent the matter to the police for inquiry. Police submitted report on 29-8-1965, The preliminary order was passed on 14.9.1965. 2. The first party members filed 8 affidavits and the second party members 6 affidavits. The second party members have been recorded in the settlement and are paying rent for the disputed land all through. In 1946-47 the second party members Plaintiffs filed a civil suit which was dismissed. 3. It is not disputed by Mr. Mohanti that the members of the first party were dispossessed from the disputed land at least on 28-4-1965 if not on 11-1-1965. He, however, contends that though they were dispossessed more than 2 months before the date of the preliminary order, they must be held to be in possession on that date as they had moved the Court for protection and are not to suffer for Court's inaction. 4. There was some controversy on this question and the matter was finally set at rest in Gangadhar Singh and Others Vs. Shyam Sunder Singh that the mere act of moving the Court is not enough for a party to seek protection from exemption from the mischief of Section 145(4), 2nd proviso. It is for the party to be watchful of his rights and to constantly move the Court so that his right might not be affected by delay either on the part of the Magistrate or the police. If the party is vigilant of his rights and seeks protection of the Court from time to time, the inaction of the authorities would not be used to his disadvantage. 5. In this case, though the members of the first party were attending Court from time to time, they were merely haziras and never drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the preliminary order was not being passed within two months of the dispossession. In the circumstances dispossession beyond two months from the date of the preliminary order must work out to the disadvantage of the Petitioners. In the circumstances dispossession beyond two months from the date of the preliminary order must work out to the disadvantage of the Petitioners. On the admitted position that the members of the second party were in possession on the date of the preliminary order and the first party members were not dispossessed within two months thereof, possession of the second party is to be declared 6. The order of the learned Magistrate is contrary to lan law and is accordingly set aside. It is hereby declared that the members of the second party were in possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order and are entitled to possession of the same until evicted therefrom in the course law. The members of the first party are forbidden from disturbing the possession of the members of the second party until eviction. The criminal revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed