ORDER I have gone through the record and proceedings of this case. I have read the judgment of the learned District Judge and heard counsel for the parties. I find myself entirely in agreement with the report of the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The petitioner was according to him, in possession of the land known as "Zarivaril Bharad" consisting of a cashew grove and a paddy field. Sometime prior to the dispute that is the subject-matter of these proceedings a similar dispute arose which threatened to cause a breach of the peace. The matter was referred by the Police to the Magistrate who after carrying on proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code adjudicated upon the matter and held that the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute. namely "Zarivaril Bharad". 3. The respondent who in the first case is said to have tried to interfere with the possession of the paddy field portion of "Zarivaril Bharad" has this time according to the petitioner tried to interfere with the possession of a portion of that land consisting of the cashew grove. 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter under Section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code and issued a notice under sub-section (4) of that section. The notice issued under Section 145(1) states that the dispute which was likely to cause breach of peace, was in respect of the land "Zarivaril Bharad". On receipt of the notice the petitioner appeared before the court and asked for an adjournment. The adjournment was granted and the case was adjourned from 6-4-1971 to 14-4-1971. On this date the petitioner raised a preliminary objection which he placed before the Court in writing. The objection was that on the previous occasion the respondent had tried to interfere with the land "Zarivaril Bharad" and that the proper court after considering the facts of the case had held that the petitioner was and should continue to be in possession of the land until he was dispossessed in due course of law. The petitioner praved that his preliminary objection should be heard before the present case should proceed on merits. The learned Magistrate did not hear the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner. Neither did he fix any date for the hearing of that petition. The petitioner praved that his preliminary objection should be heard before the present case should proceed on merits. The learned Magistrate did not hear the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner. Neither did he fix any date for the hearing of that petition. Instead, he made a local inspection of the land in dispute on 21-4-1971, prepared a report of the inspection on 23-4-1971 and passed the final order dated 29-4-1971, which is now impugned in this revision application. 5. Shri Kadam, learned advocate for the petitioner, attacks the order not only on the ground that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 145(1) when on previous occasion a similar question had arisen and after due adjudication the petitioner was held to be in possession of the land in dispute, but also on the ground that no opportunity was given to him in either to file affidavits or other documents. Shri Kadam states in his application raising the preliminary objection that his client was entitled to have a decision given on the preliminary objection before he should be asked to file affidavits and documents in support of his case. I find that this argument is unexceptionable. 6. The initial order issued by the Magistrate under Section 145(1) assuming jurisdiction in the matter refers to the land in dispute as "Zarivaril Bharad" and the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was quite to the point. The learned Magistrate went wrong when he overlooked this objection and proceeded to decide the case and the error becomes graver because the matter was decided without giving the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate his case. 7. Shri Naik, learned advocate for the respondent, argues that the previous application was in respect of the portion of the land "Zarivaril Bharad" consisting of the paddy field, whereas the present application is in respect of the portion of the same land consisting of the cashew grove. As I have already stated the first order passed by the learned Magistrate in these proceedings under Section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code does not specify that the dispute is in regard to the portion of "Zarivaril Bharad" consisting of the cashew grove though I have my doubts whether even if such specific reference was made the Magistrate would have jurisdiction to entertain this application. The land "Zarivaril Bharad" constitutes one unit and no special application could be made in respect of various parts of it. 8. It is further argued by Shri Naik that the respondent petitioner had not adduced any evidence though an opportunity for that purpose had been given to him. In my opinion the applicant was not bound to file any evidence in the case. He was entitled to have the preliminary objection raised by him decided, because for all we know the learned Magistrate might have upheld his contention and dismissed the application in which case the question of filing affidavits and producing documents would not at all arise. Shri Naik tried to draw support from various decisions, but from the reading of a gist of one of them it was found that all of them involved cases in which objections raised by the Magistrate were some way or other decided. At any rate no purpose would be served by quoting authoritative decisions when the case could easily be decided on facts. The case of the respondent on facts is not sustainable. ORDER I accept the reference and, as recommended by the learned Sessions Judge remand the case to the Magistrate First Class, Pernem, for deciding the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner and thereafter proceed according to law giving the parties opportunity to substantiate their respective cases. Order accordingly.