JUDGMENT 1. - This petition of revision has come up before me in the following circumstances : 2. Haji Ibrahim, respondent No. 2, herein, made an application under Section 145 Cr. P.C. for a declaration that he has been and is in possession of plot No. C-93. A situate at Subhash Marg,C-scheme Jaipur and that there is a dispute concerning this property between him and the respondents, Dr. S K. Taneja, Davendra Kaushik, Ramjilal, Captain Sampuran Singh and Smt. Anari Devi, that the dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace and that therefore proceedings under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. may be taken concerning the said plot. Simultaneously, he prayed that the plot in dispute be attached in accordance with section 146 Cr. P.C. 3. This application was made on 29th November, 1982. The Executive Magistrate concerned obtained a report thereon from the local police. The police also confirmed that the dispute concerning this plot between the aforementioned parties could cause a breach of the peace and that therefore proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. may be taken. 4. On November 29, 1982, the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order in accordance with the provisions of Section 145(i) Cr. P.C. calling upon the parties to attend his court on December 20, 1922, and put in written statements of their respective claims. The learned Magistrate further passed an order under Section 146 Cr. P.C. attaching the plot in dispute so as to prevent the threatened breach of peace. He appointed the Tehsildar Jaipur as Receiver to take possession of this plot till further orders. On December 3, 1982, the learned Magistrate passed further orders directing the Receiver to put his locks on some rooms erected on this plot. 5. Capt. Sampooran Singh, Dev Raj Taneja, Ramjilal advocate, Latta Devi w/o Bhero Singh M.L.A., and Padmadevi wife of N.C. Choudhary. On December 3, 1982, the learned Magistrate passed further orders directing the Receiver to put his locks on some rooms erected on this plot. 5. Capt. Sampooran Singh, Dev Raj Taneja, Ramjilal advocate, Latta Devi w/o Bhero Singh M.L.A., and Padmadevi wife of N.C. Choudhary. Advocate filed the present petition of revision on December 10, 1982 for setting a side the orders, dated, November 29, 1982 and December 3, 1982 mentioned above on the ground, inter alia, that they had purchased this plot from Davendra Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Anari Devi, son and widow, respectively, of Prakash Chand Kaushik, on November 18, 1982 and that the vendors had delivered possession of this plot to them on the even date and what the impugned orders had been passed by the learned Executive Magistrate without any notice to them. 6. This petition of revision was admitted by this court on December 10, 1982, without any notice of motion to Haji Ibrahim. On that very day, this court passed an exparte order staying the operation of the orders, dated, November 29, 1982, and December 3, 1982. Notices was ordered to issue to the respondents, including Haji Ibrahim, of the petition of revision as well as of the petition of stay. Haji Ibrahim entered appearance and raised a preliminary objection that Davendra Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Anari Devi, who figured as parties to the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P.C. had not been implead as parties to the present petition of revision by the petitioners. This court upheld the objection and directed the petitioners to implead them as parties to this petition. It further directed the petitioner learned counsel to file process fee and notices of non-petitioners Devendra Kumar Kaushik and Smt. Anari Devi and to obtain the processes dasti for delivery to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for service on the respondents. The matter remained pending from 2-2-1983 to 18/7/83 for want of Service of the notice on the aforementioned respondents. What happended on 18th July, 1913 is important. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not enter appearance before this court that day. The petitioners were also absent. This court recorded the proceedings as follows- "None present on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are also not present. What happended on 18th July, 1913 is important. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not enter appearance before this court that day. The petitioners were also absent. This court recorded the proceedings as follows- "None present on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are also not present. Notices of Davendra Kumar Kaushik, Smt Anari Devi and Amar Singh were given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioners but they have not been received either served or unserved. A later from the C.J.M. Jaipur has been received which shows that notices were not received by him. These notices were given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioners and it was his duty to submit the notices to the C.J.M., Jaipur. Today, neither the petitioners nor their counsel are present. The revision petition is dismissed in default. The stay order passed by this Court on 10/12/1982 is hereby vacated". 7. Having discovered that the stay order, dated, December 10, 1982 which appears to have been the main object of filing this revision petition, had been automatically vacated by the dismissal in default of the revision petition, the petitioners' learned counsel, who also happens to the husband of one of the revision petitioners, lost no time in moving an application on July 18, 1983 itself, purporting to do so under section 482 Cr. P.C. for setting aside the order of dismissed and for restoration and decision of the revision petition on merits. He also made another application for stay of the operation of the impugned orders dated. November 29,1982 and December 3, 1982. 8. This application under Section 482 Cr. P C. came up before me for orders today. Instead of going into it on merits. I thought it would be much better to dispose of the Petition of revision itself if the parties were aggreable to this course Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Haji Ibrahim, were good enough to agree that this court may decide the petition of revision itself without going into the merits or otherwise of the order of dismissed mentioned above. 9. I have heard both sides in the matter of petition of revision mentioned above. 10. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Haji Ibrahim, were good enough to agree that this court may decide the petition of revision itself without going into the merits or otherwise of the order of dismissed mentioned above. 9. I have heard both sides in the matter of petition of revision mentioned above. 10. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, I am of opinion that the learned Executive Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the impugned orders, dated, November 29, 1982 and December 3, 1982 which may call for interference by this court at this stage of the proceedings. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the possession of the land in dispute was apparently with the petitioners on November 29, 1982 and that therefore the learned Magistrate was not justified in passing the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C and the order of attachment and for the appointment of Receiver under section 146 Cr.P.C. I am afraid this court does not have any material before it to be able to accept the contention that possession of the land in dispute was with the petitioners on November 29, 1982. It may right away be mentioned here that the petitioners are admittedly not the owners of the plot in dispute. On their own showing, they entered into an agreement with Davendra Kaushik and Smt. Anari Devi for the purchase of this land on November 18, 1982, i.e. only a few days prior to November 29, when according to them they were in possession of this land. There is no material on the record to prove or even remotely indicate that Davendra Kaushik and Smt. Anari Devi had any right, title or interest in this plot which they could possibly transfer to the petitioners On the other hand, a registered sale deed is available on the record, which if relied upon, would prove that Haji Ibrahim is the owner of the plot in dispute since 1968. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhary that the plot in dispute was in possession of Prakash Chand till his death in 1977 and thereafter Davendra Kaushik and Smt. Anari Devi entered into possession as heirs of Prakash Chand. There is no material on the record to prove that Prakash Chand had any heritable title in this plot at time of his death. Chaudhary that the plot in dispute was in possession of Prakash Chand till his death in 1977 and thereafter Davendra Kaushik and Smt. Anari Devi entered into possession as heirs of Prakash Chand. There is no material on the record to prove that Prakash Chand had any heritable title in this plot at time of his death. It is mentioned in the written statement of Haji Ibrahim that Prakash Chand was one of his friends who had been looking after this plot as his representative for some time. Prakash Chand had throughout been residing in a rented house in Sethon Ka Bagh Ajmer Road, Jaipur where his family including Davendra Kaushik and Smt. Anari Devi are sill residing. It is submitted on behalf of Haji Ibrahim that the agreement deed, dated, November 18, 1982 between Davendra Kaushik and Anari Devi as the so called venders, and the petitioners as the so-called vendees, was the result of a conspiracy between them which was hatched with a view to grabbing Haji Ibrahim's plot at Jaipur, as he resides at Jodhpur. 11. Under the circumstances the executive Magistrate concerned has acted quite correctly in making a preliminary order under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. regarding this plot and attaching it and appointing a receiver to take its possession, till further orders. 12. Before concluding, I would also like to mention here that the petitioners in this case include two women one of whom is the wife of an Advocate of this court and the other is the wife of a sitting M.L.A. The petitioners appeared on the scene for the first time raising a claim of title and possession to this plot on the basis of a document prepared 10 or 12 days prior to the date on which Haji Ibrahim filed an application under section 145 Cr.P.C. The executants of that document do not themselves have any title to this plot. That is why perhaps no deed of sale etc. has so far been executed and registered. These factors must have weighed with the learned magistrate in passing the impugned orders which he thought necessary, for the prevention of breach of peace. In a situation like this, this court cannot interfere in the proceedings which are in progress before the magistrate concerned in accordance with the provisions of section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. 13. These factors must have weighed with the learned magistrate in passing the impugned orders which he thought necessary, for the prevention of breach of peace. In a situation like this, this court cannot interfere in the proceedings which are in progress before the magistrate concerned in accordance with the provisions of section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. 13. For all these reasons, I do not find any substance in this petition of revision and dismiss it as such.Revision dismissed. *******