JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by Vipin Prakash and Suresh Kumar against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated May 23, 1977, whereby the order of the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, dated November 25, 1975, attaching the subject of dispute until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof was set aside and the application of the applicants under section 145, Cr. P. C. was dismissed and the possession of the land in dispute was ordered to be delivered to the non-applicants from the receiver. 2. The short facts giving rise to this revision application may be stated as follows:- Vipin Prakash and Suresh Kumar, hereinafter referred to as party No. 1, presented an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, for initiation of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. against Surja Ram, Arjun Ram and Mohniya, hereinafter referred-to as party No. 2. It was alleged in the application that an agricultural land measuring 24 Bighas and 10 Biswas comprised in Murabba in Murabba No. 11 situated in Chak 84 Choti Tehsil, District Sri Ganganagar, belonged to the father of party No. 1. The land was partitioned by the father of party No. 1 on May 30, 1970, along with other properties. Out of this land, 12 Bighas and 5 Biswas fell to the share of Vipin Prakash and the other half went to the share of Suresh Kumar who are both members of party No. 1. After the partition, party No. 1, cultivated the land which fell to their respective shares. In the Rabi Season of the year 1974-75, they cultivated wheat crops therein. The members of party No. 2 wanted to grab the land. So they started threatening party No. 1 with dire consequences, if they did not leave the land and handed it over to the former, Party No. 1, thereupon made a report to the police that party No. 2 was bent upon committing breach of the peace. The police called for party No. 2 and asked them not to disturb the peace. The police called for party No. 2 and asked them not to disturb the peace. Thereupon, members of party No. 2 assured party No. 1 in the presence of the police authorities and respectable persons of the locality that they would not do any such act as may result in breach of the peace. In spite of this assurance members of party No. 2 made an attempt to dispossess party No. 1 from the land in dispute. Party No. 1 was, however, rescued by Ashok Kumar and his companions and in this manner the attempt of party No. 2 to take forcible possession of the land was foiled. The party No. 1, therefore, presented an application for initiation of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. against party No. 2 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who later on transferred it to the court of the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. The application was supported by the affidavits of Barkat Ram, Ashok Kumar, Khan Chand and Vipin Prakash, applicant. 3. The Executive Magistrate First Class was satisfied after going through the application and the affidavits that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning the land. He, therefore, passed an order in writing stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the land under controversy. As the case was considered to be one of emergency, the learned Magistrate attached the disputed land and appointed the Tehsildar as receiver thereof. Party No. 2 appeared before the leasned Magistrate and filed a written statement wherein they claimed to be in peaceful possession of the land in dispute. It was further stated in the written reply that a suit under section 108 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is pending in the court of the Assistant Collector, Sri Ganganagar, in respect of the possession of the disputed land and in that suit a temporary injunction has been issued on June 13, 1975, restraining party No. 1 from causing any interference with the possession of party No. 2. 4. The learned Magistrate proceeded to inquire into the matter. 4. The learned Magistrate proceeded to inquire into the matter. Both the parties adduced evidence oral as well as documentary to prove their possession over the land at the date of the preliminary order. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute at the relevant date. Consequently, he passed an order under section 146, Cr. P. C. that the disputed land shall remain under attachment until a competent court had determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Aggrieved by this order, both the parties filed separate revision petitions in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The revision petitions were transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for disposal according to law. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by party No. 1 and accepted the revision-petition filed by party No. 2 and directed that order passed by the Executive Magistrate attaching the land in dispute was illegal and party No. 2 would be entitled to get the possession of the land from the receiver. As against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, party No. 1 has moved this court in revision. 5. I have carefully persued the record and heard Mr. N. N. Mathur for the applicants party No. 1 and Mr. B. K. Chauhan appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners party No. 2. After going through the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, I am of the view that it is erroneous. The reason is that the learned Magistrate attached the land in dispute under sub-section (1) of Section 146, Cr. P. C. as she was unable to satisfy here self as to which of the parties was in possession thereof at the relevant date. The Additional Sessions Judge did not say that the learned Magistrate wrongly held upon materials on the record that she was unable to satisfy herself as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute. The Additional Sessions Judge did not say that the learned Magistrate wrongly held upon materials on the record that she was unable to satisfy herself as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute. Unless he differed from the opinion of the learned Magistrate and came to a conclusion upon consideration of the entire evidence oral as well as documentary on the record that the learned Magistrate was able to satisfy herself as to which of the parties was in possessions of the subject of dispute at the relevant date, he was not justified in making an order for withdrawal of the attachment and for delivery of possession of the land under controversy to party No. 2. The conditions prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 156, Cr. P. C. for attaching -the property are:- (1) if the Magistrate considers the case to be one of emergency ; (2) if he is of opinion that none of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute, and (3) if he was unable to decide which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate was of the viewthat she was unable to decide which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute. Therefore, unless her above view was held to be erroneous by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the attachment of the land could not legally be withdrawn by the revisional court until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. 6. Another ground on which the order or the learned Magistrate was set aside in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that there was no longer any apprehension or breach of the peace, concerning the land. The learned Magistrate did not record a finding in her order about the non-existence of an apprehension of breach of the peace. On the other hand, while passing a preliminary order under sub-section (1) of S, 145, Cr. P. C. she was satisfied upon the materials on the record that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed between the parties concerning the land in dispute. On the other hand, while passing a preliminary order under sub-section (1) of S, 145, Cr. P. C. she was satisfied upon the materials on the record that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed between the parties concerning the land in dispute. The satisfaction about existence of breach of the peace was to be of the Magistrate and not of the Court of revision, unless it was arrived at in a capricious manner. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the apprehension of breach of the peace no longer existed was based on the mere fact that a temporary injunction was issued in a suit on June 13, 1975, in favour of party No. 2 restraining members of party No. 1 causing any interference with the possession of party No. 2. The learned Magistrate who initiated the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. was to determine the question of actual possession with reference to the date of the preliminary order or within two months next prior to it, if any party had been .forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed from the subject of dispute within such period, and, in making an inquiry into this matter any previous order of civil or revenue court relating to possession of the property could be taken into consideration but there is no invariable rule or law that the learned Magistrate was barred by every previous order of the civil or revenue court from making an inquiry into question of actual possession with reference to a particular point of time. The weight to be attached to any such previous order varies with the facts and circumstances of particular case. Consequently, it cannot be said in the present case that the learned Magistrate ought to have rejected the application under section 145, Cr. P. C. or ought have refrained from passing the preliminary order simply on the ground that there had been a previous order of temporary injunction in favour of party No. 2 restraining party No. 1 from causing interference with the possession of party No. 2. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, is clearly unsustainable. 7. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, is clearly unsustainable. 7. I, therefore, accept the revision-application, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, and send the case back to him to rehear the revision application No. 15 of 1976 filed by Surja Ram and others against Vipin Prakash and Suresh Kumar and to give a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law.Revision accepted. *******