JUDGMENT R. P Sinha J. This application in revision by the petitioner, who was first party in the court below, is directed against final order passed on 21.9.71 by a Magistrate 1st Class, Chapra, in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code' ) by which Badri Narayan Ojha who was the sole opposite party in this Court and second party in the Court below, had been declared to be in possession of the disputed land. 2. It appears that while this application was pending in this Court, the sole opposite party (Badri Narayan Ojha) died and a petition for substitution of his widow and a son under section 145 (7) of the Code was filed on behalf of the petitioner and ultimately by an order of this Court dated 1.10.74 they were substituted in his place. Notice of this application were served on the substituted heirs. Mr. Alakh Sundar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, raised a preliminary objection that this application in revision is not maintainable in view of the fact that the sole opposite party has died and there is no provision under section 145 of the Code to substitute heirs. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention because I find that under section 145 (7) of the Code the Magistrate, before whom the inquiry under section 145 was pending, could make party to the proceeding legal representative of the deceased party and could continue the inquiry. Section J 45 (7) reads as follows : “When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding, and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purpose of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto.” In view of the above clear provision of law I do not think, the application in revision, after the death of the sole opposite party, in the circumstances, is not maintainable. Besides that, under the provisions of sections 435 and 439 of the Code, under which this application has been filed, this Court can call for and examine record in a proceeding before any inferior criminal court for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised several points against the impugned order, but, in my opinion, since it is based primarily upon misreading of an important documentary evidence, it has to be set aside on that ground alone. Hence, without discussing other points I would like to demonstrate from the impugned order as to how the learned Magistrate has committed error in considering the document and basing his finding thereon. 4. It appears that on behalf of the petitioner survey map and certified copy of the khatian of khata nos 290 and 291 were filed whereas on behalf of the opposite party only a sale deed of the year 1963 executed by the deceased Badri Narayan ojha, was filed, besides some affidavits of the witnesses by both the parties. The land in dispute was a portion of plot no. 1943 appertaining to khata no. 291 and the petitioner had filed certified copy of the khatian to show that the father of the petitioner Jangi Ojha and his three brothers were only recorded in respect of the land of khata no. 291 and not any of the ancestors of the opposite party whereas the land of khata no. 290 was recorded in the names of the father and uncle of the petitioner as well as the ancestors of the opposite party. So, from the khatian of khata no. 291 it was quite obvious that the lands of khata no. 291 were not recorded in the name of any of the ancestors of the opposite party but exclusively in the names of the father and uncle of the petitioner. As already stated above, the land in dispute appertains to khata no. 291 and not to khata no. 291 it was quite obvious that the lands of khata no. 291 were not recorded in the name of any of the ancestors of the opposite party but exclusively in the names of the father and uncle of the petitioner. As already stated above, the land in dispute appertains to khata no. 291 and not to khata no. 290, yet the learned Magistrate in his impugned order has stated that from the perusal of the khatian it appeared to him that the ancestors of both the parties were recorded in respect of the land in dispute, which is a clear error of record in the circumstances as mentioned above, and he has wrongly come to the conclusion that the land in dispute stands recorded in the names of the ancestors of both parties. I, therefore, think that this case has got to be sent back to the court below for deciding the question of possession afresh after carefully perusing the documents and affidavits, filed on behalf of the parties. 5. In the result, the application is allowed, the order under revision is set aside and the case is sent back to the court below for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. Application allowed.