N. N. SHARMA. J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against order dated 17. 3. 1982 recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Case No. 176 of 1976 in proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. by which the learned Magistrate ordered revival of the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. , in pursuance of the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 11/3/1980 in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1978 recorded by Sr. B. B. L. Hajeley against order dated 10. 1. 78 dropping the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) IT appears that there was a triangular on test about house No. 985 situate in Vina, district Pithoragarh. ( 3 ) BHIM Singh, applicant and Km. Lila Waldia, opposite party No. 1 claimed the house in dispute as owners. Km. Lila Waldia further alleged herself to be in occupation of a portion of that house while the remaining portion is alleged to have been let out to Sri S. P. Sharma, opposite party No. 2. The contention of applicant Bhim Singh was that opposite party No. 2, S. P. Sharma was his tenant and on account of a rift there arose an apprehension of breach of peace amongst the parties. Km. Lila Waldia had absolutely nothing to do with the house in dispute i. e. , which was his exclusive property. ( 4 ) IT was on the application of Bhim Singh dated 23/12/1976 that the aforesaid proceedings were initiated under section 145, Cr. P. C. The police report was invited by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. The first report submitted by the police is dated 28/12/1976 which was to the effect that there was an apprehension of breach of peace and so Shri N. C. Pandey the then S. D. M. Pithoragarh recorded a preliminary order under section 145, Cr. P. C. calling upon the parties to appear on 7/1/1977 ( 5 ) ON 23/12/1976 another application also was moved by Bhim Singh alleging that in view of the emergent situation attachment of the disputed property was desirable. On that application Sri N. C. Pandey S. D. M. attached the disputed property under section 146, Cr. P. C. on 28/2/1977. It was further ordered that attachment shall continue until question of possession was decided by a competent court. ( 6 ) WRITTEN statements were filed by the parties disclosing their rival contention. On that application Sri N. C. Pandey S. D. M. attached the disputed property under section 146, Cr. P. C. on 28/2/1977. It was further ordered that attachment shall continue until question of possession was decided by a competent court. ( 6 ) WRITTEN statements were filed by the parties disclosing their rival contention. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, on 20/12/1977 Sri S. P. Sharma opposite party No. 2 moved an application before S. D. M. that he used to be the tenant of Bhim Singh in the attached house and bas shifted to another house and consequently there was no longer any apprehension of breach of peace. He further prayed that the disputed house be delivered to Bhim Singh. An affidavit in support of that application was also filed. ( 8 ) LEARNED S. D. M. invited a second report from police which reported on 7. 1. 1978 that there was no longer any apprehension of breach of peace as Km. Lila Waldiya was a teacher in a school in village-Pokhra where she resided. Sri P. P. Sharma has taken another house in his tenancy and shifted from house in dispute. ( 9 ) ACCEPTING this report learned S. D. M. set aside the attachment and ordered delivery of house in possession of Bhim Singh. ( 10 ) KM. Lila Waldiya applied for review of that order on the ground that the aforesaid order was not final but was subject to the result of revision (Criminal Revision no. 4 of 1978) already preferred by her. ( 11 ) LEARNED S. D. M. directed the parties to appear on 18/1/1978 vide order dated 13/1/1978 and disposed of that application by rejecting the same on 27/2/1978 on the ground that having perused, the reports of police and heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties there was no occasion to allow that application of Km. Lila Waldiya. The orders dated 10/1/78 and 28/2/1977 were set aside on 11/3/1980 by learned revisional court. It was thereafter that another order was recorded by learned Magistrate on 16. 6. 80 by which learned Magistrate ordered the record to be consigned with an observation that there was no occasion to go behind his earlier order as the apprehension of breach of peace had ceased. It was thereafter that another order was recorded by learned Magistrate on 16. 6. 80 by which learned Magistrate ordered the record to be consigned with an observation that there was no occasion to go behind his earlier order as the apprehension of breach of peace had ceased. ( 12 ) ON 17/3/1982 the learned counsel for the parties were again heard and the proceedings were ordered to be revived in pursuance of the directions of the order of learned revisional court. This order is being assailed in this revision. ( 13 ) I have heard Sri B. P. Gupta and Sri. J. C. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L. Debnal, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A. G. A. and perused the record. ( 14 ) THE impugned order has been assailed by learned Advocates for the revisionist on the ground that having once recorded an order on 10/1/1978 that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and having reiterated the same in his order dated 27. 2. 1978 it was not open to S. D. M. concerned to revive the proceedings. An order once recorded by the Magistrate was not review able as was held in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali Singh reported in A perusal of the facts of that case would go to disclose that it was not a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. ( 15 ) THE complaint in that case had been disposed of by a judicial order by the learned Magistrate and so it was not open to him to review or recall that order. ( 16 ) SO the aforesaid authority is not in point. ( 17 ) THE next authority relied upon by learned advocate has been reported in Gajpat Rao and another Vs. Smt. Ladli Kunwar and others2 which provides that in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. when a preliminary order has been drawn under Section 145 sub-clause (I) Cr. P. C. and at a subsequent stage a party applies for non-existence of apprehension of breach of peace it was mandatory for the Magistrate to dispose of that application after affording an opportunity to the parties of proving the truth of such allegation. Rejection of such application without giving opportunity to parties was not an interlocutory order. P. C. and at a subsequent stage a party applies for non-existence of apprehension of breach of peace it was mandatory for the Magistrate to dispose of that application after affording an opportunity to the parties of proving the truth of such allegation. Rejection of such application without giving opportunity to parties was not an interlocutory order. Thus the argument developed was that it was a final order now when the Magistrate found that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and thus not revisable or review able by him. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist further replied upon Han Shanker and others v. Bali. In that case magistrate passed a valid order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. concealing the proceedings and directing one of the parties to retain possession unless evicted there from in due course of law. The proceedings came to an end and magistrate could not assume jurisdiction to recall the earlier order. ( 19 ) ALL these contentions are devoid of force. It is obvious that the orders prior to 11/31/980 have been set aside by Learned Sessions Judge in Criminal revision No. 4 of 1978. Under that order of the Sessions Judge the Magistrate was directed to proceed further with the matter and S. D. M. was bound to give effect to that order. In his order Learned Sessions Judge rightly pointed out that the Magistrate forged that Km. Lila Waldiya was the main contestant who asserted that her house hold effects were lying in a portion of that house. She also filed a written statement to that effect. A mere look at the record shall go to disclose that learned Magistrate did not conduct any enquiry as to possession. No opportunity was afforded to the parties to adduce evidence. A look at the order sheet shall go to disclose that no statements of the parties were recorded to the effect that they did not want to adduce any evidence at all. When Lila Waldiya had already preferred a revision against the order dated 10/1/1978 dropping the proceedings there was no longer any jurisdiction in the Magistrate to observe in the subsequent order dated 27/2/1978 that be was sticking to his earlier view as expressed on 20/1/1978 All these orders had been washed away by the order of the revising court. When Lila Waldiya had already preferred a revision against the order dated 10/1/1978 dropping the proceedings there was no longer any jurisdiction in the Magistrate to observe in the subsequent order dated 27/2/1978 that be was sticking to his earlier view as expressed on 20/1/1978 All these orders had been washed away by the order of the revising court. ( 20 ) IN fact no valid final order had been drawn in this proceeding under section 145, sub-clause (4) of the Code of Criminal procedure. No evidence was received nor parties were directed to adduce such evidence nor any enquiry was conducted. It was held on Gajraj v. C. Singh that it was obligatory on the Magistrate to decide the matter after conducting an enquiry. The mere assertion by a party that there was no longer any apprehension of breach of peace of the mere report of the police that there was no fresh outbreak of violence or from the fact that the parties were peacefully could not justify the dropping of the proceedings. In this case the learned Magistrate at any stage of proceeding had not conducted any enquiry not recorded a valid final order. A preliminary order could be cancelled only when there had been some settlement between the parties or the opposite party made it clear that they had not claimed nor had any intention to assert claim to the possession of the property in dispute. Km. Lila Waldiya was consistent of the point that there was apprehension of breach of peace. The order dated 10/1/1978 recorded by learned Magistrate without hearing Km. Lila Waldiya was without jurisdiction. Since the aforesaid orders were illegal so learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in allowing the revision and ordering further enquiry into the matter in accordance with law. ( 21 ) IN this view of the matter I do not find any merit in this revision which is dismissed. Interim order dated 6/7/1982 is vacated herewith. Revision dismissed.