V. P. MATHUR. J. ( 1 ) THIS revision Is directed against the judgment and order passed on 11-3-1986 by Mr. M P. Singh the then Sessions Judge Ballia. The learned Sessions Judge was disposing of Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1985 and he set aside the order passed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar. A. S. D. M. Bansdih. District Ballia passed In Criminal Case No. 49 of 1985. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts arc that at the instance of Vijay Kumar Pandey and Paras Nath Pandey proceedings under section 145 of the Cr. P. C were started. They came with the allegations that they were bhumidhars in possession of plot no. 60 measuring decimals and of plot no. 48 measuring 61/2 decimals in Mauza janari. P. S. Kotwali, district Ballia. They also contended that the opposite parties namely Deooandan Pandey and others had, no concern with these plots, but they were laying claim to the same and since there was an apprehension of breach of peace. Action under section 145 Cr. P. C. may be taken. A preliminary order was passed by the A. S. D. M. on 7. 3. 1984 and simultaneously be directed attachment of the standing crops. A local lawyer Mr. Paras Nath Lal was appointed Commissioner and was directed to go on the snot and carry out the attachment and submit his report. Then on 12. 4. 1984 the revisionists filed a written statement. Their contention was that originally this land was the bhumidhari of Surendra Pandey who transferred the same in their favour and since then they have been in possession and that the attached crop was also theirs as it had been sown and grown by them. It was also contended that Surendra Pandey had transfer red the actual possession of this land also since he was in possession by virtue of a private partition. ( 3 ) A written statement was also filed by Deonandan Pandey and others and their contention was that the first party was not in sole possession over the property, but that they were co-tenant and since there was no private partition, hence it was a jointly held property. ( 3 ) A written statement was also filed by Deonandan Pandey and others and their contention was that the first party was not in sole possession over the property, but that they were co-tenant and since there was no private partition, hence it was a jointly held property. ( 4 ) AN application for dropping of the proceedings was moved on behalf of Deonandan and it was on the ground that since the parties were In joint possession over the property in dispute, proceedings under section 145 Cr P. C, could not be allowed to continue. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate by his order dated 25. 4. 85 came to the conclusion. Firstly be held that it was apparent that there was sufficient cause for apprehension of breach of peace In respect of the plots in dispute. Secondly, he held it was true that the parties were co-owners of the plots as a whole, but so far as the specific portion, which was attached- on the snot, was concerned, there was nothing on the record to show that it was also in joint possession of the parties and It was not exclusively in possession of Parasnath Pandey and another. Even with this observation he dismissed the application to drop the proceedings. ( 6 ) A criminal revision being numbered 107 of 1985 was promptly moved by Deonandan Pandey and 2 others and by the impugned order dated 13 3. 1986 it was allowed and the order of the learned A. S. D M. Bansdih dated 25. 4. 1985 was set aside. The attachment order was Quashed and the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. were dropped. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge took an erroneous view and passed wrong orders. It is undoubted that the plots nos. 160 and 48 were joint holdings of Chandradip, Jaigovind. Shishupal, Deonandan, Surendra Nath. Ram Chandra Sukh Nandan, Chandrakesh and Sripati. This will be dear from the revenue records which have been filed in this case. The entire khata measuring 8. 74 acres; but the dispute was only in respect of fraction thereof. Precisely speaking for 7 decimals of plot no 60 and 61/2 decimals of plot no. 48. Shishupal, Deonandan, Surendra Nath. Ram Chandra Sukh Nandan, Chandrakesh and Sripati. This will be dear from the revenue records which have been filed in this case. The entire khata measuring 8. 74 acres; but the dispute was only in respect of fraction thereof. Precisely speaking for 7 decimals of plot no 60 and 61/2 decimals of plot no. 48. The khsra extract also showed the names of all the co-owners as being in possession. The question still remains whether inspite of these Khasra entries and inspite of the fact that a sale-deed was executed by Surendra Pandey in favour of the present revisionists, the possession of the snot continued to be joint possession of all the cc. owners in respect of the entire land or whether somehow the revisionist came to be in exclusive possession of the area of these pots which was placed under attachment. In the absence of any specific evidence to that effect the learned Magistrate rightly felt that it was not possible for him to decide that point and this point could not be decided at the stage at which it was raised. But immediately after coming to that conclusion he should have passed an order of postponing thet disposal of the application for dropping of the proceedings and called upon the parties to adduce evidence in respect of the plea that any specific possession of any party was there on the spot. The mistake in his order lies where he directed the disposal of the petition itself. ( 8 ) 7 The learned Sessions Judge considered all these aspects of the matter. He rightly allowed the revision and set aside the order of A. S D. M. but he was again wrong hi directing that the entire proceedings should stand quashed and dropped. This was also not called for. He should have directed the learned Magistrate to direct parties to adduce evidence on the question of possession, so that the Magistrate could decide the question whether the property was still in joint possession; or whether on specific portion which was attached, the present revisionists had somehow entered into exclusive possession. ( 9 ) UNDER these circumstances the revision has to be allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge passed on 13. 3. ( 9 ) UNDER these circumstances the revision has to be allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge passed on 13. 3. 86 has got to be set 8side and so also a part of the order of the learned A. S. D. M. Bansdih dated 25. 4. 85. The matter shall go back to the A. S. D. M. Bansdih with the direction that he will give an opportunity to parties to adduce evidence on the point whether the property in dispute i. e. property which has been put under attachment continues to be in joint possession of the parties or whether the present revisionists are in exclusive possession over the same. There after on the basis of the findings at which he arrives he may pass an order. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith so that proceeding are expedited. .