JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision application directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, dated March 16, 1971, in a proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The dispute relates to three parcels of land covered by Khasra, numbers 395, 396 and 411 situate in village Chanchori, Tehsil Pali. The march of events in regard to these fields deserve to be noticed for the purposes of deciding the revision before me. 3. Nawla made an application under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pali, on the ground that he was apprehending a breach of the peace at the hands of Amardass, Mangilal, Pukh Raj, Bhanwardas and others. 4. Mangilal field another application on 5.6.1968 complaining that he apprehended breach of peace at the hands of Nawla and others. 5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pali issued a notice on 27.6.68 asking the parties to show cause why proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code not converted into one under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Nawla was dissatisfied and he preferred a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Pali and obtained a stay before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Meanwhile, Amar Das filed an application under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code before the Additional District Magistrate, Pali on 5.10.1968 against Nawla and others. Prior to this, Nawla had apprehended that Amar Das might rush to Additional District Magistrate. He, therefore, on 4.10.68, moved an application before the Additional District Magistrate that the matter was sub judice before the Session Judge, Pali and no action be taken on Amar Das's application which was being filed by him, until he was heard. The Additional District Magistrate not withstanding Nawla's application dated 4.10.68, proceeded to pass an exparte order of attachment of the lands in dispute on 5.10.68. Nawla there upon went to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali in revision against the order of the Additional District Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge granted a stay against the orders of attachment on 16.10.68 on the revision application filed by Nawla after hearing both the parties. Eventually, however, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 16.3.1971, dismissed the revision application on the ground that when the Additional District Magistrate had found a case of emergency he could as well have issued an exparte attachment order regard lest of the application filed by Nawla. Eventually, however, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 16.3.1971, dismissed the revision application on the ground that when the Additional District Magistrate had found a case of emergency he could as well have issued an exparte attachment order regard lest of the application filed by Nawla. 6. Ms. V.S.Dave says that the apprehension of a breach of the peace in regard to the land began on 2.6.1968 and heavens would not have fallen if the learned Additional District Magistrate would have heard Nawla whose application was already pending with him, before issuing the order of attachment. The learned Sessions Judge, added the learned counsel, has not appreciated the undue haste shown by the learned Additional District Magistrate and the strategy adopted by Amar Dass. 7. No one appears on behalf of Amar Dass and others. 8. All that Nawla had asked the learned Additional District Magistrate by his application dated 4.10.68 was that he had come to know that Mangilal and others were going to file an application under section 145, Criminal P.C. before him, and that no orders be passed on that application without hearing him. In the presence of such an application by Nawla it was hardly proper on the part of the learned Additional District Magistrate to have hastened to pass the exparte order of attachment on 5.10.68 on the application of Amar Dass and that too at the back of Nawla, who was quite anxious to be heard before passing of any order. Such an order cannot but be termed as improper. I might observe, it is always safe when a party is anxious to be heard, to hear it rather than to show undue haste in deciding something at the back of the party. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the position in the case regarding the dispute which had commenced as early as June 1968. It is an unfortunate situation that the case under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code is endlessly dragging. 9. I, accordingly, quash the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, dated 5.10.1968 and the order dated 16.3.1971 of the Sessions Judge, Pali affirming it, and direct the Additional District Magistrate to hear the other side and, if necessary, pass such orders as he may deem fit in the circumstances of the case but expeditiously. 10. 9. I, accordingly, quash the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, dated 5.10.1968 and the order dated 16.3.1971 of the Sessions Judge, Pali affirming it, and direct the Additional District Magistrate to hear the other side and, if necessary, pass such orders as he may deem fit in the circumstances of the case but expeditiously. 10. The revision is accepted in the terms indicated above. *******