Short Note : The solution offered by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind to the disposal of this dispute between the parties under section 145 of the Lode of Criminal Procedure, 1898, besides being not in tune with the factual position, is not going to serve the real purpose of the breach of the peace. In so far as Khasra Nos. 590,594,603,606,607, and 609 in dispute are concerned, the parties agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that order with regard to them of the learned S.D.M is correct and calls for no interference. 2. Held: The dispute now remains with regard to the remaining Khasra Numbers. Admittedly, the applicant Shantaram is owner of one-half share in them. The remaining one half share belongs to the non-applicant No.2 Kumari Bachchi Devi, she haying purchased them under the registered sale deed dated 2-9-1972. The 'question, however, is as to who was in the actual possession of these Khasra Numbers at the relevant time i. e., on 22-2-1973, when the preliminary order was passed and within a period of two months prior thereto. As the things are, both parties have claimed to be in actual possession of these lands. The revenue papers, however disclose a different state of affairs in that, some of the Khasra Numbers are shown in the cultivating possession of one party and some others in the cultivating possession of the other party. About at least two Khasra Numbers, the position is doubtful What is more, a Civil Suit is pending between the parties engulfing dispute with regard to possession also. The parties, therefore, suggest that these Khasra Numbers may be allowed to be continued under attachment till disposal of that suit. Since the material on record is hardly of any real help in deciding the dispute between the parties, I think, the course suggested by the parties would be the most appropriate in the interest of maintenance of peace. Reference partly accepted.