JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a revision petition by Bholanath Krishna Kant Jha, party No. 1, against the confirming order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Balaghat, in criminal revision No. 53 of 1967 whereby the learned Judge has held that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate, Waraseoni, placing the non-applicant No. 1- Party No. 2- in possession of the land in dispute is proper. ( 2. ) THE facts, in brief, out of which this revision arises was that a complaint was filed by the police station officer, Rampaili, that a dispute existed between the parties regarding possession of khasra Nos. 210, 346/1, 346/2, 239/1 and 239 /2, which was likely to lead to breach of the place in the village. The contention of the party No. 1- applicant was that the lands in dispute are in his possession and the Party No. 2 threatened to dispossess him. He also said that his two brothers, Shyamsunder and Dwarkanath filed a suit for partition and an appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the Courts below is pending in the High Court. The High Court passed a stay order that till the decision of the appeal, final decree for partition be not passed. The party no. 2-Non-applicant No. 1 - contested the claim of Party No. 1 on the ground that there was a partition in the family and 11. 43 acres of land was given in possession of Dwarkanath as a result of that partition and he transferred the same to Ramashankar Mishra, who was the uncle of the Party No. 2. It was also said that for the last 15 years the possession of the suit lands is with the party No. 2. It was further said that the Party No. 1 had filed a civil suit no. 16-A of 1962 for permanent injunction restraining the party No. 2 from disturbing his possession in enjoyment of the lands in khasra No 346 /2 which was, though decreed by the trial Court, was set aside by the First Appellate court on 5th October, 1966. It was also pleaded that the Party No. 2 had, by a registered sale deed, purchased the other lands in dispute and is in its possession since 31-5-1966. ( 3. It was also pleaded that the Party No. 2 had, by a registered sale deed, purchased the other lands in dispute and is in its possession since 31-5-1966. ( 3. ) THE Party No. 2 filed, in support of his claim, affidavits and other documentary evidence but the Party No. 1 did not file any, and the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that the party No. 2 was in possession of the disputed lands within two months of the preliminary order passed by him under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, he ordered accordingly. ( 4. ) APPLICANT-PARTY No. 1- went in revision before the learned Additional sessions Judge, but his revision was dismissed. ( 5. ) SHRI B. M. Lal, counsel for the applicant, has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the affidavits filed by the Party No. 2 were not sworn before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Waraseoni, who had conducted the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the affidavits do not form a legal evidence. His second contention is that in view of the stay order passed in second appeal No. 251 of 1966 pending in the High Court and also in view of the injunction order existing in civil suit No. 16-A of 1962, the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no legal force. Shri B. M. Lal has relied on Wahid v. State ( AIR 1963 All 256 ), Hemdan v. State of rajasthar ( AIR 1966 Raj 5 .) and Umarosingh v. Ramgopal ( 1960 MPLJ 1176 = air 1961 MP 9 ) in support of his contentions. ( 6. ) SHRI Dharmadhikari, on the other hand, has urged before me that, according to section 4 of the Oaths Act, any magistrate is competent to administer oath or affirmation of a deponent before whom it is sworn and the affidavits filed by the non-applicant No. 1 sworn before the Second Class Magistrate are proper and form a legal evidence. ) SHRI Dharmadhikari, on the other hand, has urged before me that, according to section 4 of the Oaths Act, any magistrate is competent to administer oath or affirmation of a deponent before whom it is sworn and the affidavits filed by the non-applicant No. 1 sworn before the Second Class Magistrate are proper and form a legal evidence. He also contended that in the civil litigation referred to above, the question of possession of the lands in dispute was not decided and the Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1966 having been decided in favour of Party No. 2, the Criminal Court was competent to proceed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is proper. ( 7. ) HAVING heard both the learned counsel and after giving my careful attention to the contentions raised before me, I am of the view that both the contentions raised by Shri Lal are without any substance and deserve to be rejected for the reasons I presently show. Section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure confers power on the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Magistrate of the First Class to intervene and pass a temporary order in a dispute between the parties regarding possession of land which threatens to develop into use of force causing the breach of the peace. The enquiry contemplated by this section is intended to be a sort of summary one and it is incumbent to finish it quickly. It authorises the parties to the dispute to file documents and affidavits in support of their claims. Section 510-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the affidavit evidence. It empowers the court to allow evidence of the formal character to be given by affidavit and subject to all just exceptions such evidence may be read in any inquiry or trial. Section 539 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the affidavits and affirmations to be used before the High Court. Section 539-A deals with the affidavit in proof of conduct of public servant and Section 539-AA says;- "an affidavit to be used before any Court other than a High Court under section 510- A or section 539-A may be sworn or affirmed in the manner prescribed in section 539 or before any Magistrate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " It is true that section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lay down before which authority affidavits filed therein should be sworn. But section 510-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was inserted by the same Amendment Act (26 of 1965) which applies to all such formal affidavits filed in any inquiry or trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 8. ) NOW, the question arises, which is the competent authority before whom the affidavits, which are required to be filed in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be sworn or affirmed ? section 4 of the Oaths Act which provides for the authority to administer oaths and affirmations is relevant for the purpose of the decision of the question at hand and it is as follows :- "4. Authority to administer oaths and affirmations. The following Courts and persons are authorised to administer, by themselves or by an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties or in exercise of the powers imposed or conferred upon them respectively by law :- (a) all Courts and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence; (b ). . . . . In Wahid v. State (Supra), it was held that :- "an affidavit under section 145 cannot be sworn or affirmed before a Commissioner or oaths officer appointed by the High Court. " It also held that the affidavits which had to be filed in such proceedings can be sworn by the Magistrate before whom the proceedings are pending decision. To this extent, I am in respectful agreement with the decision of this Court. But section 4 authorises all Courts to administer, by themselves or by an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties or in exercise of the powers empowered or conferred upon them respectively by law. To this extent, I am in respectful agreement with the decision of this Court. But section 4 authorises all Courts to administer, by themselves or by an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties or in exercise of the powers empowered or conferred upon them respectively by law. It makes quite clear that all the Courts, may be a First Class magistrate or a Second Class Magistrate or a Third Class Magistrate, are competent to administer oaths and affirmations and section 4 (a) of the Oaths Act being very clear, there is nothing to restrict the authority of the Court to receive evidence in the particular case under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The words "having authority to receive evidence" appearing in Clause (a) of section 4 of the Oaths Act, in my view refer to jurisdiction or authority which must be conferred on the Court either by law or by consent of the parties. I, therefore, hold that all the Magistrates to whatever category they may belong are competent to administer oaths and affirmations under section 4 (a) of the Oaths Act and I am, therefore, in respectful agreement with the decision reported in Ahmad Din v. Abdul Salem (AIR 1966 Punj 528) With this view of the case, I am unable, with due respects, to agree with the reasoning adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in Hemdan v. State of Rajasthan (supra ). In the instant case, as the affidavits were sworn before a Second Class Magistrate, who was competent for the purpose, the affidavits filed were proper and the contentions raised by Shri B. M. Lal have no force. ( 9. ) AS regards the second contention, it will suffice to say that no civil litigation between the parties decided the question of possession of the lands in dispute. Civil Suit No. 233-A of 1959, out of which the second appeal No. 251 of 1966 was filed in the High Court and stay order was passed on 12-8-1966, has no concern with the possession of the lands in dispute between the parties but it, being a partition suit, only decided the question of each partys share in the partition. Civil Suit No. 233-A of 1959, out of which the second appeal No. 251 of 1966 was filed in the High Court and stay order was passed on 12-8-1966, has no concern with the possession of the lands in dispute between the parties but it, being a partition suit, only decided the question of each partys share in the partition. The decree passed in civil suit No. 16-A of 1962 was also set aside by the First Appellate Court and though a Second Appeal is pending, there is no stay order passed therein so far. Therefore, the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started on 14-12-1966 and it is pertinent to note that the appeal against the decree passed in civil suit no. 16-A of 1962 was decided on 5th October, 1966. There was no injunction order in force and the Criminal Court was competent to deal with the question of actual possession and not the right of possession under section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Looking to the material on record, the Courts below have passed a proper order and no interference is called for. ( 10. ) THE result therefore is that the revision petition is dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.