BY COURT This is an application against a final order in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (briefly the 1973 Code). The second party it the petitioner, the possession having been declared in favour of the first party. Originally a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as amended in 1955 (briefly the 1898 Code) was started on 13-3-1974. This was converted on 9.5.1974 into the present proceeding. The lands in dispute are with respect to plot Nos. 572/866 are a 1.03 acres, 572/983 area 0.50 acres, 572/902 area 0.45 acre. 572/864 area 0.23 1/2 acre, 573/929 area 0.10 acre, 572/111 area O.10 acre, 572/1121 area 0.16 acre and 572/1121 area 0.20 acre under Khata No. 57 of village Navadih Panad within Hunterganj police station in the district of Hazaribagh. 2. The matter has been referred to us on the short question whether in view of the Provisions of Section 145(4) of the 1973 Code the documents relied upon by the party II required to be proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act. Section 145 (4) of the 1973 Code reads as follows: "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, bear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, If any, as he think 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. Provided that if It appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report or a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of hid order under sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1).” The words receive all such evidence as may be produced by them are relevant. In 1898 Code as amended in 1955 in section 145 the words used were “Further requiring them to put any such documents or to adduce by putting in affidavits the evidence of such person as they relied upon in support of such claims.” The provision in 1973 Code are similar to the Provisions in 1898 Code prior to the 1955 amendment clearly a distinct departure has been made by the use of the word document in section 145 of 1898 Code as amended in 1955 and in 1973 Code by use of the word ‘evidence’ . In view of sections 62 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence clearly means in regard to documents, such documents those are proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act. It has been held in the case of Kandu Mushar & ors. Versus Jagdish Debi & Ors. by S. Ali Ahmad, J. In paragraph 3 of the said judgment as follow: “The proceeding was initiated by an order dated 10th of October, 1975. It, therefore, had to be disposed of by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under the Old Code, proceedings under section 145 had to be disposed of on perusal of the documents and affidavits filed by the parties. In the new codes a significant change has been made, in as much as, to decide the proceeding on perusal of the statement put in by the parties and after receiving of such evidence that may be produced by them. The procedure, therefore, of deciding the proceeding on perusal of the statements put in by the parties and the affidavits and documents filed by them has been given a go-bye. Witnesses have now to be examined and documents proved in accordance with Evidence Act, Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate and both the parties missed this aspect, and a large number of documents were filed by both the parties, according to the old Procedure. Those documents have been considered fully and relied upon by the learned Magistrate. It will be useful to quote, in that connection, the following lines from the order of the Magistrate. “On perusal of the documents filed by both parties the allegation of the second party that the first party played fraud upon them and got the sale deeds executed on the plea of giving hand pumps etc. It will be useful to quote, in that connection, the following lines from the order of the Magistrate. “On perusal of the documents filed by both parties the allegation of the second party that the first party played fraud upon them and got the sale deeds executed on the plea of giving hand pumps etc. are baseless.” This finding, therefore, in my opinion, is based on inadmissible evidence. 3. This we think is the correct view in regard to the matter in question. It is essential now, that the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties must be proved formally as required by the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on the case of Kallashbehari Lal Vs. Jai Narain Rai and others which is a decision under the 1898 Code. This decision does not have a direct bearing on the question in issue, but the words used arc 'documentary evidence which we feel mean documents that are proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the opposite parties drew our attention to section 465 of the 1973 Code and has submitted that since this point was not raised and no objection was taken in the trial court, failure of justice has not occasioned justifying any Interference. There is no substance in this point because the objection could only be taken after Inadmissible evidence has been used by the trial Court. We have not stated about the claim or the respective parties because it is not relevant in view of the order that we propose to pass. The order dated 16-7-1976 is accordingly let aside and the matter is remanded to the Executive Magistrate or competent jurisdiction to permit the parties to remove the defect in the documents by getting them formally proved in accordance with law and thereafter dispose of the matter after hearing tile parties on the evidence already on the record. We must do all this within two months from the date of the receipt of the lower court records which should be sent down to the court below without any delay. No notice need be issued to the parties. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to inform their respective parties to appear before the court below and ensure that the proceeding shall be disposed of without further delay. The application is accordingly allowed with the above observation. Application allowed.