Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order passed in a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly confined his arguments on the point that the documents have not been considered. "It has also been stated that Ram Pravesh Dubey (opposite party No.1) had died and there has been no substitution. 3. It may be appreciated that the proceeding in between the parties bad been drawn some time in the year 1977, i.e., about nine years back. The very fundamental or a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code was apprehension of breach of peace. It is difficult to appreciate that such situation would be continued for a decade. Under the circumstances, continuation of such a proceeding should not be unregulated rather, I strongly feel that there ought to be a ceiling on the life of such a proceeding as it has been done in the proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Code as provided under Sec. 116(6) of the Code. 4. It is really unfortunate that such a proceeding whose basis was the apprehension of breach of the peace was allowed to continue mechanically for an unreasonable time. That, in fact, creates various complications and also at times true possessor is kept away from the real possession causing irreparable injury. 5. Under the circumstances, although not indicated in the statute yet the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code, apparently when it appears to be stale, should be dealt with keeping also in view that as a matter of fact the real settlement of the issue would have been by way of a suit before a competent Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the documents have been considered in true perspective, and also the evidence have been analysed 6. In a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code, of course, it becomes necessary to consider the documents and also the evidence but such consideration should not be mechanical. Rather, if there be such consideration which apparently appears to be sufficient for the disposal of the proceeding, that can be said to be sufficient consideration. In a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code, of course, it becomes necessary to consider the documents and also the evidence but such consideration should not be mechanical. Rather, if there be such consideration which apparently appears to be sufficient for the disposal of the proceeding, that can be said to be sufficient consideration. In other words, it is not necessary to write about all the documents even if some of them are neither relevant nor material for the decision of the right and title of the parties regarding possession. A court bas to give a verdict on the cumulative effect of the consideration of the evidence and also the documents and thus, a court is not required to make consideration as desired by a party. In the instant case, I find, as stated above, that there is not scope to say that there has been no proper consideration of the evidence and documents. 7. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed.