V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is a result of an order passed in the proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. The proceedings were initiated by Smt. Javitri Devi by an application moved on 31. 10. 1981. A police report was called for and is dated 3. 11. 1981 to the effect that there was all apprehension of breach of peace. Upon this the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 4. 11. 1981. Oil 21. 11. 1981 Smt. Javitri Devi applied for attachment of the property but the learned. Magistrate directed the coatinualice of the status quo. Then Oil 6. 1. 1982 the preselit opposite party no. 1 Rajpal Singh, filed his written statement by way of obligation against the proceedings and on 27. 1. 1982 Smt. Javitri Devi felid an additional written statement claiming herself to be in possession. on 31. 8. 82 the learned Magistrate, passed an order that he was not satisfied as to who was in possession on the spot and hence he directed that the property be attached and kept under attachment till such time as the decision is obtained from a competent civil court. ( 2 ) AGAINST this order, criminal revision no. 104 of 1982 was filed by Rajpal Singh and Prem Singh and the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, by his impugned order dated 1. 3. 1983 allowed the revision and declared the revisionists to be entitled to possession of the plots in question. He also forbade all disturbance in their possession until they are evicted in due course of law. Against this order, the present revision has been filed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist argues that in view of the scheme of Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the matter is of the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and he has no decide it. The Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the question of possession.- In support, the case of Mahavir and others v. State of Y. P. and others was cited. That ease was similar to the present one. The Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the question of possession.- In support, the case of Mahavir and others v. State of Y. P. and others was cited. That ease was similar to the present one. In that case brother S. J. Hyder, J considered the provisions of Sections 397, 389, 390, 391 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also Sec. 386 and especially sub-sectioned) thereof and came to the conclusion that the satisfaction of the Magistrate is an essential ingredient of Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the revisional court is not entitled to make its own assessment of the evidence on record and come to a conclusion as to who was actually in possession on the date of the preliminary order and two months prior to it, ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties has, however, argued that the satisfaction of the Magistrate is limited only up to the stage of the passing of the preliminary order under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. and thereafter the decision has to be made on merits on the basis of evidence and the mere satisfaction of the Magistrate does not come in the picture at all. The present order, which is impugned, has been passed under Sec. 146 (1) Cr. P. C. This section reads as follows: 146-Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint Receiver- (1) if the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub section (I) of Sec. 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Sec. 145 or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the- attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. ( 5 ) A bare perusal of this provision of the law will show that while passing order under Sec. 146 Cr. Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the- attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. ( 5 ) A bare perusal of this provision of the law will show that while passing order under Sec. 146 Cr. P. C. the necessary ingredient will again be the satisfaction of the Magistrate. In this light of the legal position, the decision in the case of Mahavir (Supra) will very well be completely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case also. If the learned Session, Judge was of the view that the order of the learned Magistrate was vitiated on account of illegality, impropriety or incorrectness, his jurisdiction was limited to set it aside and direct the Magistrate to decide the question of possession afresh in the light of the evidence which the learned Magistrate allegedly did not look while passing his order. The Sessions Judge was not justified to make his own assessment of the evidence and come to a different conclusion that the opposite parties and not the revisionist were in possession. That jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon the Magistrate by the Legislature by the use of the words satisfaction of the Magistrate in the law itself. The Sessions Judge by taking up that jurisdiction, has committed a manifest error because the jurisdiction did not vest in him. ( 6 ) IN the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Mr. S. M. Goel, IVth Addi. Sessions Judge, Bijnor, on 1. 3. 1983, is set aside and the case is remanded to the court of the Magistrate, having jurisdiction in the matter, to decide afresh, after considering the entire evidence that is on the record, as to which of the parties was in possession at the time of the passing of the preliminary order and within two months prior to it. Additional documentary evidence may be allowed to be filled by the parties, but no oral evidence or additional evidence on affidavits will be permitted. Revision allowed. .