JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - In a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure possession of the first party, who is opposite party herein, was declared in respect of some agricultural lands. The second party members have come up in revision challenging the correctness of this order. 2. The properties belonged to one Ude Bhuyan who died issueless. Second party members claimed to be his farm-servants and to have remained in possession of the properties after his death. The case of the first party is that after the death of Ude Bhuyan, the lands have been settled by the Gountia with him and one Dhaneswar Rath. The first party bad filed a limit in T.S. No. 19 of 1961 for a declaration of his right to the property and for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed in his favour and possession of the land was delivered to him through Court on 24-10-1966. Despite this delivery through Court, the second party members appear to have created disturbance to the first party's Possession, and therefore, a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was started, and the preliminary order was passed on 20-10-1967. After enquiry, The learned Magistrate declared the first party member to be in possession. 3. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that BS. The first party did not file in Court any written statement, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken into consideration the affidavits and other evidence produced by the first, party. I am unable to accept this contention. Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Magistrate should peruse The statements, documents and affidavits, if any, so put in, hear the parties and conclude the inquiry, as far as may be practicable etc. It is contended that the words "if any" govern only the word immediately preceding it, namely, "affidavits" and that the words do not govern either "statements" or "documents". The argument is that if affidavits are not filed it would not preclude consideration of the claim put forward by the defaulting party. But if that party does not file his written statement, although he might have put in affidavits and other documentary evidence, they cannot be looked into. There is nothing in Sub-section (4) to warrant such an interpretation. The argument is that if affidavits are not filed it would not preclude consideration of the claim put forward by the defaulting party. But if that party does not file his written statement, although he might have put in affidavits and other documentary evidence, they cannot be looked into. There is nothing in Sub-section (4) to warrant such an interpretation. Absence of a written statement will necessarily be taken into consideration by the Magistrate while deciding the question of possession. But to say that the case of a party has not filed written statement should altogether be ignored is a submission which I am unable to accept. It is conceded that there is no support for this interpretation in any of the decisions of the Courts. Apart from it, I find no, merit in the case. As indicated above, the Civil Court, as recently as in October, 1966 delivered possession of the property to, the first party. This is an important piece of circumstances in favour of the first party. The learned Magistrate was Therefore right in declaring The possession of The first party and directing The disputed properties under attainment to be delivered to him. 4. In the concluding portion of the order, the Magistrate bas stated- I forbid all disturbance of such possession until the parties are evicted in due course of law. Obviously the expression "parties" is a mistake for the first party who was declared to be in possession. Subject to this clarification the application is dismissed.