Judgment B. N. Sinha, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against order dated 14-1-1984 passed by Shri Ram Tiwari, Executive Magistrate, Deoghar in a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) declaring the possession of the second party who is opposite party before this Court over the disputed land. The petitioners who were the first party, have come up in revision against the said order. 2. On a petition filed by the opposite party, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, deoghar drew up a proceeding under Sec.145 of he Code on 27-2-1976 in respect of 7.03 acres of land under Jamabandi No.1 at village Baghmara, P. S. Madhepur and District Santhal Parganas and directed the parties to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession over the disputed land. 3. The aforesaid proceeding was transferred by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, deoghar to the court of the Executive Magistrate for disposal. Parties filed their written statements and adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim of possession. After the evidence on behalf of the first party, the second party adduced evidence which was concluded on 26-7-1983 and thereafter the proceeding was adjourned to 12-8-1983 for argument on behalf of the second party. However, the argument on behalf of the second party could be concluded on 29-11-1983. In between 12-8-1983 and 29-11-1983 the case was adjourned on 10 dates. On 12-8-1983, 12-9-1983, 25-10-1983 and 29-10-1983, the case was adjourned on the prayer of the second party, it appears from the order-sheet that on 29-8-1983, 5-10-1983, 3-11-1983, 22-11-1983 and 28-11-1983 the case was adjourned on joint prayer for time by the parties. On 5-11-1983 the argument on behalf of the 2nd party was heard in part and the case was adjourned to 14-11-1983 for further argument on behalf of the 2nd party. It does not appear from the order sheet dated 14-11-1983 as to why the hearing of the argument was adjourned to 22-11-1983 on that day. However, the part heard arguments on behalf of the second party could not be taken up on 22-11-1983 and 28-11-1983 and ultimately it could be concluded on 29-11-1983 and the case was adjourned to 6-12-1983 for argument on behalf of the first party. However, the part heard arguments on behalf of the second party could not be taken up on 22-11-1983 and 28-11-1983 and ultimately it could be concluded on 29-11-1983 and the case was adjourned to 6-12-1983 for argument on behalf of the first party. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 6-12-1983, 15-12-1983, 26-12-1983, 4-1-1984 and 9-1-1 84 either because of the Presiding Officers absence from the head-quarters or because of his pre-occupation with other works. On all these dates, parties filed their Hazari and no prayer for time was made on behalf of the first party. On 9-1-1984, the case was adjourned to 13-1-1984. It appears that on 13-1-1984, the Junior of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the first party made a prayer for adjournment on the ground that the learned Advocate was not present for argument. The learned Executive Magistrate on that date did not accept the prayer made on behalf of the first party and though he did not record that the prayer on behalf of the first party was being rejected, he fixed 14-1-1984 for orders in the case mentioning that if the first party has got any objection for not being heard, he may proceed against the order to the learned Sessions Judge deoghar. The ordedrated 13-1-1984 is as follows :It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 13-1-1984 Hazaries had been filed on behalf of both the parties to the proceeding and when the case was not taken up till 4 p. m. the senior counsel for the petitioner left for his home under the bonafide belief that the case would not be taken up on that date and his junior went to the court room at about 4.30 p. m. for ascertaining the next date fixed in the case, but suddenly the case was called and thereupon the junior lawyer expressed his inability in the absence of his senior and prayed for adjournment but the court went back to Chamber without fixing any date. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that on 14-1-1984 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for transfer of the case but in spite of that petition, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. These facts have been stated in the petition also on affidavit. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that on 14-1-1984 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for transfer of the case but in spite of that petition, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. These facts have been stated in the petition also on affidavit. There is no counter affidavits on behalf of the opposite party controverting these facts. Sub-section (4) of Sec.145 of the Code reads as follows : "sub-section (4 ). The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute persue the statements so put in hear the perties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible decide whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute. " It is evident that the hearing the parties is mandatory for the Magistrate before passing the final order under section 145 of the Code declaring the possession of a particular party. The learned Magistrate had given number of adjournment to the opposite party while the case was pending for argument on behalf of the opposite party and after the conclusion of the argument on behalf of the opposite party, the case was adjourned on 5 dates though the parties were present and on 13-1-1984 when the prayer for adjournment was made by the junior of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the proceeding saying that the learned Advocate for the petitioner was not present for argument the same was not accepted and the date for order was fixed by the learned Magistrate fixing the following dates i. e.14-1-1984 for the same. 4 In absence of the counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party, i have no option but to accept the tact stated by the petitioner that by the time when the case was called, it was 4.30 p. m. that is the working hour for the court was over. 5. Under the circumstances, the learned Executive Magistrate was not justified in refusing to adjourn the case and he ought to have adjourned the case for hearing the 1st party petitioners. 5. Under the circumstances, the learned Executive Magistrate was not justified in refusing to adjourn the case and he ought to have adjourned the case for hearing the 1st party petitioners. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Executive Magistrate was under orders of transfer by notification No.12972 dated 9-12-1983 and actually made over charge on 17-1-1984 a d, therefore the learned Magistrate ought not have shown his over anxiousness to dispose of the case. These facts have also been incorporated by the petitioner in his petition on affidavit which have not been controverted by any counter affidavit. 6. I fail to understand as to why the learned Magistrate was over anxious to dispose of the case. Whatsoever may be the reason for that, it has definitely resulted in the miscarriage of justice which is apparent from the impugned order. The learned Magistrate has mentioned in this order that the 1st party has filed rent receipts which are Ext-a series but there is no document bearing Ext-Nos. a series. That shows that the learned Magistrate has not cared to look into those receipts for appreciating to the case of possession put forth by the first party. 7. Under the circumstances I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. The Revision Application is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the case is remanded for disposal in accordance with the legal provisions as contained in Sec.145 of the Code. Revision allowed.