Judgment S.Ali Ahmad, J. 1. This application in revision by the second party is directed against the final order in a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 2. The dispute related to Mahua trees standing on plot Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 30, 54 and 55 of village Jamua, Police Station Saraiyahat. district Santal Paritanas. 3. Shortly speaking, the case of the petitioners, who were second party in the court below, was that they are sons and grand-sons of the recorded tenant and they have been coming in possession of these trees. The case of the opposite party (who were first party in the court below) was that Balmukund Manjhi, (opposite party No. 3) was an adopted son of the recorded tenant and by virtue of his being the adopted son he came in possession of the Mahua trees and has been coming in possession thereof. 4. Parties filed a number of affidavits and documents before the learned Magistrate in proof of their case of possession. 5. The learned Magistrate on perusal of the materials on the record declared first party to be in possession of Mahua trees. 6. Mr. Sanyal appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the dispute relates to the standing trees, it cannot be the subject-matter of the proceeding under Sec.145 and, therefore, the said order declaring the apposite party in possession of the trees should be set aside. According to him, the expression land or water does not include standing trees. I am afraid, I cannot accept this view. Trees are produce of the land and they certainly come within the definition of land. I am supported in my view by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in AH Md. Mondal V/s. Fakiruddin Munshi AIR 1920 Cal 708 : (1921) 22 Cri LJ 131. 7. Mr. Sanyal has next drawn my attention to Annexure 1, which contains an order dated 6-9-72 where by the petitioners . have been refrained from going upon the disputed lands. According to him, disputed lands will mean the aforesaid plots Nos. 7, 8, 11. 12, 13, 14, 30, 54 and 55. There appears to be substance in this submission. The proceeding was confined to Mahua trees standing on these plots. Learned Magistrate has found them to be in possession of the first party. According to him, disputed lands will mean the aforesaid plots Nos. 7, 8, 11. 12, 13, 14, 30, 54 and 55. There appears to be substance in this submission. The proceeding was confined to Mahua trees standing on these plots. Learned Magistrate has found them to be in possession of the first party. There was no dispute with regard to possession of these plots of land in the present proceeding. In that view of the matter the learned Magistrate was definitely in error in giving the direction as contained in Annexure 1. The order dated 6-9-72 as contained in Annexure 1 is modified to the extent that the petitioners are for-bidden front interfering with the possession of the opposite party with regard to Methua trees only. I may also observe that the restraint imposed by the learned Magistrate by this order in relation to the land was beyond the scope of the proceeding. 8. With these modifications the application is dismissed.