JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The second party in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure preferred this revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional officer, Kamakshyanagar, holding the first party to be in possession of the disputed land, and passing other consequential orders in accordance thereof. 2. The undisputed facts are that Chandra Dehuri, the owner of plot No. 62 under Khata No. 20 in village Anantapur, comprising an area of A. o. 16 decimals, sold out of the same only A.o. 08 decimals to the Plaintiff-second party on 7-2-1962 by Ext. 2. The remaining A.o. 08 decimals of the said plot were sold by him to the first party in two lots by Exts. A and B dated 7-2-1962 and 3-3-1962 respectively. The dispute in the proceeding relates to A.o. 04 decimals of land in the middle of the said plot No. 62. The opposite party herein, first party in the Court below, on 30.3.1966 filed a petition before the S.D.O. Kamakshyanagar, alleging therein that since he purchased A.O. 08 decimals of plot No. 62 as par Exts. A and B, he was in peaceful possession of the same, but the second party, the Plaintiff herein, trespassed into his said land on 16-3-1966, and started putting a fence thereon, and when the first party protested against the aforesaid action, he was threatened with dire consequences. The petition of the first party was sent to the officer-in-charge, Bhuban P.S., for enquiry and report, and on his report dated 26-7-1966 the Court below passed the preliminary order u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure on 4-8-1966 in respect of A.O. 04 decimals of land in the middle of plot No. 62, and the said order was served on the parties on 18-8-1966. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, contended that on the above undisputed facts and on the admission of the first party in his petition dated 30.3.1966, that he was unable to possess or to go upon his own land since after 16-3-1906, and on his averments in the affidavit dated 30-10-1966 that the second party erected a small Kutcha shed overnight on the aforesaid plot of land after enquiry by the police and about one week before the attachment of the disputed property, the Court below, in accordance with the provisions of Section 146, Code of Criminal Procedure, should have held that it was the second party who was actually in possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order. 4. Mr. A.B. Misra, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, first party in the Court below, contended that the act of the second party on 16-3-1966 was only a single act of trespass and as such it could not be construed therefrom that the first party was completely dispossessed from his land from that date onwards. According to Mr. Misra, the first party continued in possession of the land in question even after 16-3-1966, and as such the finding of the Court below is justified and cannot be interfered with. 5. In the petition initiating a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the first party on 30-3-1966 it is specifically mentioned that the second party forcibly entered into the land in question on 16-3-1960 and started erecting a fence on the same, and when the first party protested against the aforesaid act, he was threatened with dire consequences. It is also stated therein that out of fear due to the threatening attitude of the second party, the first party was unable to go upon the said land in order to possess the same. Again the first party in his written statement filed on 30-10-1966 stated that one week before the attachment of the disputed property the second party erected overnight a small Kutcha shed on the said land. Affidavits filed by others on his behalf corroborate these facts. Again the first party in his written statement filed on 30-10-1966 stated that one week before the attachment of the disputed property the second party erected overnight a small Kutcha shed on the said land. Affidavits filed by others on his behalf corroborate these facts. Considering the above statements of the first party himself along with the assertion of the second party regarding continuous possession of the land in question, it becomes highly doubtful that the first party ever exercised any act of possession over the said land at least after 16.3.1966 the date when the second party as alleged exercised forcible possession on the same. It is also highly improbable that the second party who admittedly exercised an act of possession on the said land on 10-3-1966 by putting a fence on the same and also erected a Kutcha shed on the disputed land one week before the attachment order, i.e., sometime in August 1966, was not in possession of the same for the interim period, specially when the first party admittedly was unable to go upon the said land due to fear of the second party. Considering all the above facts in the light of the assertions made and the affidavits filed, I feel convinced that the first party on and from 16-3-1966 could not go upon the land in question to exercise any act of possession thereon, and that the second party continued in possession of the land at least from the aforesaid date, and was in actual physical possession of the property on 4-8-1966 when the preliminary order u/s 145(1), of the Code was passed. 6. As has been found above, the second party obtained and/or continued in possession of the land in question more than two months prior to the passing of the preliminary order. There is nothing on record to show that the first party, opposite party herein, acted diligently in moving the Court for taking suitable steps for the early and timely issue of the preliminary order. He after filing the petition on 30.3-1966 kept quiet over the matter, and as such the delay caused in passing the preliminary order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure on 4-8-1966 was due to the laches of the first party. This, therefore" is a case which is completely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Gangadhar Singh and Ors. This, therefore" is a case which is completely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Gangadhar Singh and Ors. v. Shyamsundar Singh (1958) C.L.T. 274. As it has been proved that the Plaintiff-second party was in possession of the land for more than two months prior to the initiation of the proceeding u/s 145 of the Code, his possession consequently should be maintained until evicted therefrom in due course of law. 7. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Court below being incorrect is hereby set aside, and for reasons stated above, it is hereby declared that the second party, the Plaintiff herein, is entitled to retain possession of the land in question until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and until such eviction any disturbance of his possession of the land is hereby forbidden. The order attaching the land in question is vacated in favour of the second party, the Plaintiff herein, and the usufruct, if any, out of the said land be handed over to the second party after deducting incidental expenses therefrom. The revision accordingly is allowed. Final Result : Allowed