JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - Member-1st party has filed this revision against an order in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. The subject-matter of dispute appertains to plot No. 103 in Khata No. 49. According to the 1st party, one Baidhar Champati and Nabakishore Champati along with one Panu Champati were recorded as Sthitiban tenants in the last record-of-rights and by amicable arrangement Baidhar and Nabakishore were in separate possession of half of the land. Both Baidhar and Nabakishore died issueless. After Baidhar's death, his widow brought the 1st party to her house and since then he has been in possession of the disputed land paying rent regularly. The 2nd party, on the other hand, claims to be in possession all along and denies the let party to have been ever in possession. Besides written statements, five affidavits were filed on behalf of the 1st party and three on behalf of the 2nd party. In addition, 1st party filed documents marked En. 1 to 12 out of which, Exs. 1 to 10 are rent receipts and the 2nd party appears to have filed documents marked Exs. A to E. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order found the 2nd party to have been in possession within two months preceding the date of the preliminary order and declared that they are entitled to be in possession until evicted therefrom by due process of law. 2. The Petitioner assails this order mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence, applied his mind to the material placed before him and has arbitrarily declared the 2nd party to be in possession. This contention is substantially correct. 3. The scope of the enquiry in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is to determine whether any and which of the parties were in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order or within two months preceding the said date where there has been forcible and wrongful dispossession. The question regarding possession is to be determined without reference to the merits of the claim or right of the respective parties to possess the subject-matter of dispute and is to be based on the statements, documents and affidavits, if any, put in by the respective parties in response to the notice. The question regarding possession is to be determined without reference to the merits of the claim or right of the respective parties to possess the subject-matter of dispute and is to be based on the statements, documents and affidavits, if any, put in by the respective parties in response to the notice. For this purpose, it is necessary that the learned Magistrate should apply his mind, scan the affidavits and other documents put in, and decide the question of possession. Learned Counsel appearing for opposite parties concedes before me that in the present case, the learned Magistrate has totally failed to make any reference to the affidavits filed by respective parties and the merits and demerits of the statements made therein. From this, it is patent that he has not applied his mind in arriving at this conclusions. Similarly, he has referred to the documents alleged to have been filed some of which, are not on record. Even here, the learned Magistrate does not appear to have applied his mind to find out the import of the documents and their evidentiary value, so far as the possession of the subject-matter in dispute is concerned. He mainly purports to rely on two documents (Exs, B and E). Ex. B. is a compromise petition entered into between the 2nd party and the superior landlords to which the 1st party was not a party. As Ex. E is not on record, and as the learned Magistrate has not dealt with its contents or whether it applies to the disputed land at all, it is not possible to know its relevancy. The learned Magistrate has written the order in a perfunctory manner and it is highly unsatisfactory. In these circumstances, learned Counsel for opposite parties concedes that the impugned order cannot be maintained. 4. Hence, I allow the revision, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and direct him to dispose of the matter afresh after due consideration of the affidavits filed by respective parties as when as the documents filed by either side. For the purpose of disposing of the proceeding, he should call upon the parties to file such of the documents which have been taken return of, so that it will be possible for him to consider their effect in reaching his conclusions.