JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. 1. I have heard Sri Krishna Kapoor learned counsel for the applicants and also Sri V. C. Tev\ari, learned counsel for Prem Shanker, Gajadhar and Arya Vidya Sabha, opposite parties. I have also heard the learned counsel for the State. The above revision was admitted by this Court on 23-7-87 and the operation of the impugned order dated 22nd of May, 1987 was stayed. 2. In this case, the disputed property pertains to a portion of house no. 360 situate in mohalla Kalibari, police station Baradari, District Bareilly. Applicants Rajesh Kumar, Rakesh and Rajendra Kumar filed an application on 19th June, 1986 before the City Magistrate alleging that they were in possession of the aforesaid disputed property and the respondents Prem Shanker, Gajadhar and Arya Vidya Sabha wanted to take forceful possession over the said property. The City Magistrate on the same day called for a report from the Tahsildar who entrusted the enquiry to the Naib Tahsildar who by his report dated 23rd June, 1986 reported that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. On 24th June, 1986 Rajesh Kumar filed an application before the Magistrate praying that a preliminary order under section 145 (1) be passed and the property be attached. On the same day Magistrate passed the preliminary order under section 145 (1) CrPC and also passed order of attachment under section 146 (1) CrPC. The disputed property was accordingly attached and summons were sent to Tahsildar for service on the respondents. The copy of the preliminary order sent for service was returned by the Tahsildar with the following note of the process server on the back page of the notice: - "Half sey bayan karta hoon ki Sri Rajesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rajendra Kumar ko Tareekh sey soochit karkey hashtakshar kara liye gaiy va Shri Premshanker, Gajadhar, Shri J. N. Jaswant apney makan par maujood miley robakar parhaar hastakshar karney say inkar kar kiya va ek nakal robakar vivadit isthal par chaspa kar diya gaya sewame robroo gavahan report pesh hai". On receipt of the above service report, the learned Magistrate proceeded ahead and the appellants filed their written statements. On receipt of the above service report, the learned Magistrate proceeded ahead and the appellants filed their written statements. After recording the exparte evidence of PW 1 Rajendra Kumar, PW 2 Gopal and PW 3 Rajesh Kumar the learned Magistrate passed the final order ex-parte on 23-2-87 under section 145 CrPC and held that the applicants were in possession of the disputed property. 3. Aggrieved by the above order of the Magistrate Prem Shanker and others filed Criminal Revision no. 62 of 1987 in the court of the Sessions Judge. The applicants had also filed Cr. Revision no. 82 of 1987 against Prem Shanker and others and both the revisions were connected by the Sessions Judge. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties set aside the ex-parte order dated 23-2-87 passed by the Magistrate and allowed the revision no. 62 of 1987 filed by Prem Shanker and others. The learned Sessions Judge remanded the case back to the court of the City Magistrate for deciding afresh and the parties were directed to appear before the Magistrate on 19-6-87 to file their written statements. The learned Sessions Judge had also directed the City Magistrate to decide the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties for adducing evidence. However, the learned Sessions Judge directed that the attachment of the disputed property under section 146 (1) shall continue till the pendency of the proceedings before the City Magistrate and possession of the property shall be delivered to either of the parties according to law after passing of the final order in the case. The revision no. 82 of 1987 filed by Rajesh Kumar and others was rejected by the Sessions Judge by the same order. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence on the record in recording the finding that proper service was not done on Prem Shanker and other applicants of the notice sent by the City Magistrate. It was, therefore, contended by him that under the circumstances, the order of the Sessions Judge remanding the case back to the City Magistrate for fresh hearing is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Sessions Judge and also through the record of case which is before me. It was, therefore, contended by him that under the circumstances, the order of the Sessions Judge remanding the case back to the City Magistrate for fresh hearing is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Sessions Judge and also through the record of case which is before me. I am fully satisfied that the Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the case to the court below to decide the question of possession afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. There has also been non-compliance of the provisions contained in sections 62, 63, 64 and 65 CrPC regarding affecting service of notice dated 25-6-86 sent by the City Magistrate on Prem Shanker and others and, therefore, in view of the non-compliance of the prescribed procedure for the service of the copy of the order as required under the law on the respondents, the final order passed by the City Magistrate under section 145 (3) CrPC deserves to be set aside. It is important to note that even the City Magistrate was not conscious of the provisions of section 65 CrPC which requires the Court to make enquiry and then declare whether the service has been affected or not. The record does not show that the City Magistrate applied his mind to the report of the service official or made any enquiry or declare that the copy of the order dated 25-6-86 passed by him was served on Prem Shanker and Gajadhar. The learned City Magistrate had only passed a mechanical order that the service had been affected on the parties. 6. It is significant to point out here that the service report of the process server on the back of the notice dated 25-6-86 issued by the City Magistrate is undated and the signature of the process server below the said report is also illegible. The report also appears to be in the form of an affidavit but there is nothing to show before whom it was sworn. IT curiously enough contains the signatures of Raj Kumar and Rajendra Kumar and thumb impressions of Raj Kumar applicants and also of one Kaluram. The report also appears to be in the form of an affidavit but there is nothing to show before whom it was sworn. IT curiously enough contains the signatures of Raj Kumar and Rajendra Kumar and thumb impressions of Raj Kumar applicants and also of one Kaluram. There is nothing to show in report as to on what date and at what time the process server had served the said notice on the respondents Prem Shanker and Gajadhar. In view of the circumstances mentioned above the final order dated 23rd February, 1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge under section 145 (3) CrPC has been rightly set aside by the Sessions Judge. There is also no infirmity in the order of the Sessions Judge which requires interference by the High Court. 7. In the result, the revision filed by the applicants is dismissed and the stay order dated 23-7-87 by this Court is vacated. 8. Office is directed to send the record of this case to the C.J.M. Bareilly within 7 days from today. The C.J M. Bareilly is . directed to recall the file of the case from the court of Sri R. S. Gupta Upper Magistrate Bareilly and try the case either by himself or send the case to some other court of competent jurisdiction other than the court of Sri R. S. Gupta, Upper Nagar Magistrate, Bareilly. Revision dismissed.