Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the final order passed in a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 2. The proceeding was initiated in the year 1966 about 20 years back and it has come to an end on 11-4-1983, that is, covering a period of about 17 years. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly confined his argument that there has been non-consideration of the evidence and documents in this case. He bas stated that there has been consideration of only a few documents. 4. Before I take up the merit of this case, I would like to mention that the very basis of a proceeding under Section. 145 of the Code is the apprehension of breach of peace and thus, the meaningful purpose of such a proceeding is to prevent such apprehension and any such declaration made by way of order in the proceeding is always subject to the verdict of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, continuation of such a proceeding of several decades or even for such period, which may be termed as unreasonable, betrays both the element of existence of apprehension of breach of peace and the requirement of a speedy decision, on the dispute of possession "in fact" confined to a limited period. 5. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that there ought to be a curtailment in the time consumed for the disposal of the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code as has been provided under Section 116(6) of the Code in the case of a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Code. 6. It may also be appreciated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, such cases may also be termed as stale and in this view of the matter, interference is only warranted if there be such compelling and extraordinary situation. It is never permissible to allow such proceedings to prolong mechanically without any valid reason and if that is allowed, certainly complications will arise leading to the denial of right and possession of a true possessor and owner. 7. On a peru3al of the entire records, absolutely there is no justification for this proceeding to continue for several years. 8. It is never permissible to allow such proceedings to prolong mechanically without any valid reason and if that is allowed, certainly complications will arise leading to the denial of right and possession of a true possessor and owner. 7. On a peru3al of the entire records, absolutely there is no justification for this proceeding to continue for several years. 8. However, coming to the merit of the order, the evidence and the documents have been considered and thus there is no occasion to say about non-consideration of the same. It may be appreciated that in a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code, of course, consideration of documents and evidence is a must but that will not mean that such consideration has to be made mechanically. Rather such consideration is confined to the limit that which is sufficient for an effective disposal of the proceeding and without making out any case of non-consideration or misreading. 9. Moreover, it is the cumulative effect of the consideration of the evidence and document which finally matters in shaping the final order in a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code and it is not always necessary to speak about all the matters mentioned in the documents and all the sentences made available by the parties. 10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application, which fails and is dismissed accordingly.