JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - The Magistrate dismissed the application of the present opposite paries holding that there has been an earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and the matter has been adjudicated, so if subsequently any apprehension of breach of peace has developed any. resat to proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C, afresh cannot be made and whatever other action may be possible and open can be claimed having resort to such remedy. Tit matter went in revision and the revisional court has set aside that order directing the Magistrate to proceed under Section 145, Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by this order a second revision has been preferred by the other side, namely, the present revisionist, who has succeeded before the Magistrate. 2. The point urged before me is that the very land was involved in an earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. with the area and all the parties concerned were parties to that proceedings also and the present revisionists were declared to be in possession and the present opposite sides were directed not to disturb their possession until the right to possess is determined by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 3. It was urged on behalf of the other side that the earlier litigation did not cover the entire area and the same land and that the parties were not identical. Both these sub -missions have no force. The preliminary order passed in the earlier proceedings on November 5, 1979 is on record of the lower court file and it would show that the proceeding was initiated., by one Mst. Ukathi under Section 145, Cr.P.C.. concerning plot in Chak No. 351 area 27.059 limbs. At the end boundry of the disputed plot was given. In the present case also the dispute relates to that very area of that Chak. Be -fore the revisional court it was urged that actually in the earlier proceeding the dispute lated to only 10 acres of the Chak in question and not the whole area. This plea was repelled by the revisional court itself. Apart from that, it is clear from the aforesaid preliminary order that the dispute in the earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., related to the very Chak No. 351 and the area is also identical, i.e., 27 acres and odd. This plea was repelled by the revisional court itself. Apart from that, it is clear from the aforesaid preliminary order that the dispute in the earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., related to the very Chak No. 351 and the area is also identical, i.e., 27 acres and odd. Out of the present opposite parties, Bilgoo was one of the opposite parties in the earlier case also, and Bikanu, the father of the other one, was also a party to the earlier proceeding. So was Basanta, one of the present revisionists. It would be found that in the earlier proceedings the case was decided in favour of the revisionist Basanta. There is no dispute about that. 4. It is a well settled law that the same matter cannot be restated again and again. On the contrary once a final order is passed in any proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. declaring one of the parties thereto in possession and forbidding the other parties not to disturb such possession, the matter becomes final unless later a competent court of civil jurisdiction decides to the contrary on any subsequent suit or proceeding. This is not the case. 5. In the result, no fresh proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. is entertainable and this revision is allowed and the impugned order of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Azamoarh, dated May 5. 1983, in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1983 is set aside; and order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh, dated Tanuary 4, 1983 in criminal case No. 77111 dismissing the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., is restored.