JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition by party No. 1 under section 397 read with section 401 and 482 Cr.P C against the order of the sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu dated 11-5-81 and a subsequent order dated 18-5-81. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that the party No. 1 Molla Bux filed an application under section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu and he passed a preliminary order on 24-2-81 and also treating the case to be of emergent nature, appointed Tehsildar as receiver on the property in question. It appears that thereafter an application was moved by party No. 2 for setting aside the earlier order on the ground that party No. 1 had obtained the earlier order by practising a fraud and concealing the important facts that the property in question was sold by him by a registered sale deed 10 years ago to the party No. 2. The learned S.D.M. thereafter took notice of the same and after hearing the parties on the application filed by the party No. 2 the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order re-calling his earlier order dated 24-2-81 and to maintain status quo The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate also gave a direction that now the parties would file the documents affidavit and other evidence in support of their case and thereafter the case would be decided on merits The care was directed to be fixed on 8-5-81 for the evidence of party No. 1. The party No 1 then moved an application before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, on which it was directed od 18-5-81 that he may bring any order till 25.5.81 Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that once an order was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on 24.2.81 attaching the property and appointing a receiver, thereafter it had no jurisdiction to review such order. There were no supervening circumstances under which the Magistrate could have taken notice and pass the impugned order dated 11.5.81. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate wrongly placed reliance on 1980 R.L.W. 155 and 1980 Cr.L.J. page 1. There were no supervening circumstances under which the Magistrate could have taken notice and pass the impugned order dated 11.5.81. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate wrongly placed reliance on 1980 R.L.W. 155 and 1980 Cr.L.J. page 1. Learned counsel further placed reliance on 1979 Cr.L R. page 171 in order to show that the Sub Divisional Magistrate after having passed the order dated 24.2.81 has no jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code to modify or review this order. 3. At the time of arguments asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 24.2.81 in order to satisfy this court as to under what circumstances and on what grounds the order dated 24-2-81 was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the case may be heard without filing the order dated 24-2-81 and as such I have no option then to decide this petition under a handicap of not seeing the order dated 24.2 81. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in its impugned order has mentioned the party No. 1 committed a fraud in not bringing out the real facts before him before passing the order dated 24-2-81 and he wrongly arrived to the conclusion that these was an eminent danger as to breach of peace. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate subsequently on the application of the party No. 2 has disclosed in his impugned order, that he was satisfied that there was no imminent danger of breach of peace, and as such he wrongly passed an order for attaching the property in question during the pendency of enquiry under section 145. on merits. Under these circumstances when the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of this cate arrived to the conclusion that there was no imminent danger as to breach of peace, in my opinion he could have withdrawn the attachment passed by him on 24-2-81. As the order dated 24-2-81 is not before me, it is not possible to find out as to whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate had considered the sale deed made in favour of party No. 2 at the time of the passing of the order dated 24-2-81. As the order dated 24-2-81 is not before me, it is not possible to find out as to whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate had considered the sale deed made in favour of party No. 2 at the time of the passing of the order dated 24-2-81. However, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in his order has clearly made a mention that there is no question of any imminent danger as to breach of peace and he did not consider it to be a case of emergency as such he re-called his earlier order dated 24-2-81. 4. Even otherwise I fail to exercise the powers of this court under section 482 Cr P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case in as much as according to the allegations made by the party No 1 himself, he was not in actual physical possession on the date when he had moved an application under section 145 Cr P.C. but his claim was that he was in possession within two months of his application. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate by his impugned order has only maintained status quo as existed on the date of filing of the application by party No. 1 and has further ordered that both the parties would on entitled to put forth their claim before him and for that he has fixed the case for recording the evidence. 5. Under these circumstances I do not find it a fit case to interfere in the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 11-5-81 or 18-5-81 under the inherent powers of this Court. 6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on 1978 Cr.L.J. 356 Para 7. In my view the above case do not apply in the facts and circumstance of this case in as much as if the Sub Divisional Magistrate as mentioned by him in the impugned order held that the earlier order was obtained by cancelling certain facts by party No. 1 and in view of the fact that he was satisfied that there was no emergency or necessity of passing any order of attachment then he was certainly entitled to withdraw any order passed by him for attachment. 7. In the result the petition is dismissed as indicated above.Application dismissed. *******