JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against a final order u/s 147, Code of Criminal Procedure passed by a Magistrate 1st Class, Sambalpur. 2. A proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was converted into one u/s 147 of the said Code as the Court below ultimately found the real dispute to be in respect of an easement right of way. The preliminary order issued thereunder directed both the parties to appear in Court and to put in this 'written statements etc.' by the next date. The 1st party, on appearance, adopted the same written statement and the affidavits filed by them earlier in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure the 2nd party did not appear or take any steps in this proceeding after its conversion. 3. The main question raised by Mr. S.S. Hasu, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner 2nd party is that the learned Magistrate acted illegally in disposing of this case on the written statements and the affidavits filed earlier by the parties in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure without taking evidence as provided for u/s 147, Code of Criminal Procedure, and in following the procedure prescribed in the amended Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his above contention he cited the decision reported in Lakshmidhar Patel and two Ors. v. Tejraj 30 (1964) C.L.T. 287, wherein Narasimham, C.J. opined as follows: By the extensive amendments made to Code of Criminal Procedure in ]955 Section 145 was radically recast and the Court was allthorised to dispose of the proceeding under that section on affidavits only, reserving the right to take evidence only in special circumstances. But Section 147, Code of Criminal Procedure was not amended in the same manner; on the contrary the amendment made to Section 147(1) would seem to indicate that the old procedure of taking evidence should be adhered to in a proceeding under that section. In Hari Naik v. Gopinath Roy 26 (1961) C.L.T. 458, cited by Mr. Hasu, Das, J. observed that there is nothing in Section 147(1A), Code of Criminal Procedure about the production of evidence by affidavit as provided for in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. In Hari Naik v. Gopinath Roy 26 (1961) C.L.T. 458, cited by Mr. Hasu, Das, J. observed that there is nothing in Section 147(1A), Code of Criminal Procedure about the production of evidence by affidavit as provided for in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said decision Das J. also held thus In Sub-section (IA) of Section 147 the words 'and the provisions of Section 145 shall, as far as may be applicable in the case of such inquisy' only show that the procedure laid down in Section 145 shall be followed only where no specific provision is made u/s 147. This is thus by way of supplementing the provision of Section 147 and not in substitution thereof. It is, therefore, clear that unlike the old law, the new procedures in Sections 145 and 147 are different in nature. In the case reported in Manik Chand Vs. Bhubneshwar Prasad K. Sahai, J. expressed the same view as above. I respectfully agree with the pronouncements made in the above decisions. 4. In this case it is evident from the order-sheet that no date was fixed for taking evidence from the parties so as to gave them an opportunity to adduce evidence. It is true that the Parties also of this own accord did not adduce any evidence, but at the same time there was no indication in the preliminary order that the parties could adduce evidence if they so liked. Having gone through the final order I am inclined to think that the Magistrate was all along under a wrong impression that he could dispose of this proceeding by following the procedure prescribed in the amended Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure only by taking into consideration the written statements and the affidavits of the parties, without receiving any evidence from them. 5. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Opp. parties 1 and 2 (1st part in the Court below) contended that since the 2nd party did not appear or take any steps in this case, the Magistrate could have legally disposed of the matter ex parte merely on a consideration of the unchallenged written statement of the 1st party; but he utilised the affidavits of both the parties already, on record only for a fais and proper appreciation of the matter before him. I am unable to appreciate this contention. I am unable to appreciate this contention. I do not understand how the written statements and the affidavits filed by the 2nd party in the Earlier proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure could at all be considered in this proceeding u/s 147, Code of Criminal Procedure without even a request to that effect. Moreover the affidavits of the parties could not be a substitute for evidence recorded in Court. As such the Magistrate acted illegally in taking into consideration the affidavits of both the parties which were clearly extraneous to this proceeding u/s 147, Code of Criminal Procedure. The entire proceeding is also vitiated by the failure of the learned Magistrate to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 147, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In the result, therefore, the final order passed by the Magistrate u/s 147, Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby set aside, and the case is sent back to the learned Magistrate or his successor-in-office for disposal according to law, if there is still apprehension of breach of peace. The revision accordingly is allowed. Final Result : Allowed