ORDER S.D. Singh, J. - This application in revision arises out of proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. A complaint was made by Mata Prasad in respect of plot No. 828 which is the plot in dispute and his allegation was that there was apprehension of breach of the peace over it. This complaint was referred to the police station concerned for enquiry and report. The Station Officer of the police station concerned reported that there was no such apprehension of breach of the peace as was alleged by the complainant. The complainant thereupon filed an affidavit on the basis of which the SDM was satisfied that there was such an apprehension. He issued notices against the opposite parties and ultimately the Applicants were found to be in possession of the relevant dates and the order was made in accordance with that finding. 2. The question whether there was an apprehension of breach of the peace is the main question which gives jurisdiction to the Magistrate to exercise his powers u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. If there is no such apprehension even though it is alleged by one of the parties, the SDM will have no jurisdiction to exercise his powers under this provision of the Code. 3. In the first paragraph of his judgment the SDM has certainly mentioned that he was satisfied on the affidavit filed that there was such an apprehension of breach of the peace, but this is only a preliminary opinion which was formed by the SDM exparte in the absence of the opposite parties. After the opposite parties are served they are entitled to urge before the SDM that there is no apprehension of breach of the peace; and if and when such an allegation is made, it is incumbent upon the SDM to make en enquiry in respect of that allegation. Provision for this enquiry is made Under Sub-section (5) of Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that nothing in this section shall preclude any party from showing that no such apprehension of breach of the peace exists or has existed. In such a case the SDM is required to cancel his earlier order and all the further proceedings are to be stayed. 4. In such a case the SDM is required to cancel his earlier order and all the further proceedings are to be stayed. 4. The SDM mentions in his judgment that the second party, namely, the opposite parties in this case who are Applicants in the revision, denied that there was any apprehension of breach of the peace to Mata Prasad and Shitla Prasad. If this was the allegation made by them, the SDM should have considered the evidence on that point and recorded a positive finding that there was or there was not apprehension of breach of the peace. No such finding was recorded, by the SDM and the entire proceedings in the case are, consequently vitiated by that illegality. The ex-parte finding recorded by the Magistrate in the first paragraph of his judgment was not enough to give him jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter after that opposite parties had made their appearance before him and had alleged as a fact that there was no apprehension of breach of the peace. Enquiry about possession over the disputed land or in any case a finding concerning the same was required to be undertaken or recorded only if in an enquiry Under Sub-section (5) of Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was apprehension of breach of the peace. 5. The application is allowed. The judgment of the SDM dated 19-1-1966 is set aside. The SDM will examine the evidence with if view to record a finding Under Sub-section (5) of Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and proceed further with the determination of the question of possession only if he is satisfied that there is apprehension of breach of the peace.