JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This is a revision against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack (Executive) in Crl. Misc. Case No. 54 of 1966, rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners to refer a matter to this Hon'ble Court. 2. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that prior to the present proceeding one Gopal Swain bad instituted another proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, which was converted into a Crl. Misc. Case No. 627 of 1963. In the said Misc. Case a Magistrate 1st Class, Cuttack, by his order dated 14-12-1964 found that it was the Petitioners who were in possession of the lands in question. Against that order the above named Gopal Swain preferred a revision before the A.D.M., Cuttack, who dismissed the same after a full-fledged hearing. Thereafter, as stated by Mr. Patnaik, the above named Gopal Swain sold a portion of the same lands, which were the subject-matter in the aforesaid previous proceeding, to Abhoy Chandra Mohanty after purchasing the said lands initiated the present proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court below. On these facts Mr. Patnaik contends that even though the opposite party herein, was not a party to the previous proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, he being the successor-in-interest of Gopal Swain with respect to the lands purchased as above by him, which are involved in this proceeding and are only a portion of the lands which were the subject-matter of the previous proceeding, he is bound by the final order dated 14-12-1964 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 627 of 1963, and so the Magistrate without any further consideration should have made the previous order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure absoluted against this opposite party, and should have ordered that the present proceeding against the Petitioners herein was not maintainable. 3. The contentions advanced by Mr. Patnaik are based on averments made on certain facts. In law, the final order in a previous proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, may, under certain circumstances, be binding on the parties in a later proceeding under the same section, even though they may not be parties to the previous proceeding. The facts constituting these circumstances are necessarily to be enquired into and determined by the Court of fact. The facts constituting these circumstances are necessarily to be enquired into and determined by the Court of fact. In the present case it is for the trial Court to Examine and determine the correctness of the alleged fact of transfer of lands in favour of the opposite party, and whether the lands so transferred are only a portion of the lands which were the subject-matter of the previous proceeding, and also whether those lands only are the subject-matter of this proceeding, and such other facts necessary for the determination of the point raised by Mr. Patnaik. In this revision this Court cannot decide the matter without any findings on the aforesaid facts. Moreover, the present revision is directed only against the order of the Additional District Magistrate passed in a criminal revision rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners to refer the matter to this Court. It is therefore, left to the Petitioners to reagitate this point in all its aspects, both factual and legal, in the trial court, after affidavits and documents are filed, and after evidence, if any, is recorded in this proceeding. 4. On the above view of the matter no decision can be given in this revision on the above mentioned point raised on behalf of the Petitioners. Both parties therefore should appear before the Court below within fifteen days from today to enable the Court to proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law, on giving due consideration to the above mentioned point raised here on behalf of the Petitioners. This revision is disposed of accordingly. As the matter is an old one the Court below will take an necessary steps to dispose of the matter within as short a time as possible. The records of the Court below be sent back immediately.