JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This revision is directed against order dated 2nd June, 1981 by Sri P.N. Pathak, learned S. D. M. Machlishahar, District Jaunpur, in case No. 10/81 u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure by which the attached property was released piecemeal; petrol tank and machinery was ordered to be released in favour of Indian Oil Corporation and the show-room in favour of opposite party No. 1 Sri Prasas Nath Shukla. 2. It appears that these proceedings were initiated on an application by Murli addressed to SDM concerned dated 17-3-1981 about the Petrol and Diesel Pump Annapurna Filling Station installed in Machlishahar on Allahabad-Jaunpur road relating to which there was a dispute amongst the parties giving rise to an apprehension of breach of peace; an affidavit was also annexed to the aforesaid complaint by which it was averred that Sri Paras Nath Shukla opposite party wanted to dishonestly misappropriate this property with the help of some ruffians; report from Station Officer concerned was invited and the said Pump was attached on 18-3-81; the attachment memo is dated 19-3-81 which was drawn u/s 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the Magistrate thought it a fit case of emergency. Subsequently an application was filed pending these proceedings by Sri M.C. Sahgal on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation alleging that Sri Paras Nath was the authorised dealer; Sri Murli was neither the owner of the land over which the Pump stood nor he was appointed a dealer or retailer; he had no locus stand; to initiate these proceedings ; at best he was simply a servant or attendant at this Petrol Pump; there was no apprehension of breach of peace nor there was any dispute within the meaning of Section 145(5) Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was listed for disposal on 26-5-1981; arguments were heard on 26-5-1981 and the matter was to be decided on 2-6-81 when the impugned order was drawn. Aggrieved by that decision this revision has been filed. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for parties at length and perused the record. 4. The impugned order is set aside for the following reasons. 5. It appears that the controversy raised by Mr. Aggrieved by that decision this revision has been filed. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for parties at length and perused the record. 4. The impugned order is set aside for the following reasons. 5. It appears that the controversy raised by Mr. Sahgal was left undecided; nor reached the stage of Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Magistrate had to cover the stage of Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under: Section 145(4)--The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under Sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute; 6. It appears that even the evidence of parties was not properly considered when the impugned order was drawn and the decision of the pertinent questions was left in the lurch. A mere look at attachment memo Paper No. A-16 shall go to disclose that item No. 7 which was a steel table had a lock, key of which was in possession of Murli applicant containing a sum of Rs. 2, 314.15 in cash and the papers ; it looks strange as to why this property was released in favour of Paras Nath to the manifest disadvantage of Murli without necessary incidental inquiry. Even if the Magistrate felf that apprehension of breach of peace ceased to exist it was obligatory on his part to make an inquiry on the point as to from whose possession the property had been attached before he could make an order for the property being released in favour of any party. Such an inquiry could be held by him u/s 452 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide Bhagwati Prasad v. Mahendra Nath Misra 1979 U. P. C L R 570. Similarly item 'M' relates to a notice addressed to Sri Roop Narain Yadav who is own brother of Murli. 7. Such an inquiry could be held by him u/s 452 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide Bhagwati Prasad v. Mahendra Nath Misra 1979 U. P. C L R 570. Similarly item 'M' relates to a notice addressed to Sri Roop Narain Yadav who is own brother of Murli. 7. On behal(sic) of opposite party it was maintained that Murli was simply a servant at this Petrol Pump and any dispute between the servant and master was not the dispute contemplated u/s 145(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure vide Islam Khan v. Munir reported in 1978 ACR 6 . 8. This contention is not substantiated by any cogent evidence. In this connection my attention was invited to agreement dated 16-8-77 which went to disclose that there was a partnership amongst Murli and his brothers and Paras Nath to run this business. It also contemplated procuring of the site for 'installation of Petrol Pump. Murli and his brothers used to finance this business ; there are so many letters and drafts on record which show the huge investment made by Murli and his brothers to Paras Nath etc. to run this business which negate the aforesaid contention. 9. Even a look at the record shall go to disclose that Indian Oil Ltd. was not a party to these proceedings ; by application dated 11-5-81 no prayer was made to release the Petrol Pump in favour of Indian Oil Ltd. but the prayer was that this property should also be released in favour of Sri Shukla their authorised dealer. It is well established that such supporter of a party cannot be considered, as person interested within the meaning of Section 145(5) Code of Criminal Procedure to urge that such dispute which may attract Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure is non existent. Even in exercise of power conferred by Section 452 of Code of Criminal Procedure the ordinary course open for the Magistrate was to release the property in favour of the person from whose possession it had been attached and not in favour of a person who was not even a party to these proceedings at the time of attachment and thus to bifurcate the subject matter in dispute. Even a look at the impugned order shall go to disclose that Magistrate found apprehension of breach of peace amongst the parties with reference to this property on 2-6-81. Even a look at the impugned order shall go to disclose that Magistrate found apprehension of breach of peace amongst the parties with reference to this property on 2-6-81. It was clearly a case well covered u/s 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure and not u/s 107/116 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 107/116 comes into play when the dispute does not relate to immovable property. It was not contended before me that in the instant case the dispute did not relate to land or the installation thereon. Under these circumstances I find that proper procedure has not been pursued in the case. 10. The revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate concerned to proceed in accordance with law as provided u/s 145(4) and (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Send the record to the Magistrate concerned forthwith.