JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The sole question that arises for decision in this revision is maintainability of a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure between the same parties when possession had been declared in favour of one of the parties in a previous proceeding under the same section. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, holding the second proceeding as not maintainable overruling the contrary decision of the Executive Magistrate, seeks reversal of the same. 2. The facts in a sketch are that in Cri. Misc. Case No. 71/67 between some of the opposite parties and their predecessors-in-interest and the father of the vendor of the present Petitioner, possession was declared in favour of the first party (present opposite parties) on 19.2.1968. The Petitioner is a purchaser from one Charuhandra Behera, son of Raghunath Behera who was the second party No. 1 in the previous 145 Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding. The present proceeding was initiated on the basis of a police report with the Petitioner as the first party and the opposite parties as the second party, An objection was taken by the opposite parties regarding the maintainability of the proceeding in view of the decision in their favour in the previous proceeding which, as noted before, was negatived by the Magistrate but upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. An order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is effective to declare possession in favour of one of the parties of a particular land until evicted therefrom in due course of law Until such event happens, the possession declared in favour of the successful party is to be respected and would serve as the guide for any subsequent cause of action. It is too well settled in law that when one, of the parties is in lawful possession of the property, then law must act in aid of maintaining such possession rather than disturb it and if any interference to such possession is threatened then the proper course is not to start a fresh proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure but to bind down the offending persons u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that if the decision in the previous 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding is not a recent one but had been passed long back, there might be an occasion for the same situation regarding possession not to have continued and that a different state of things than that was declared in the proceeding might have come into existence, but since a presumption of continuance of possession in favour of the successful party arises and the law gives protection to continuance of possession until varied by a competent Court, it must be the business of the judicial authorities to respect such previous decision and not attempt to res can it at the slightest excuse. If the unsuccessful party comes up with a case of continuing in possession despite the previous order against him, then clearly such plea is not entitled to be entertained and has to be thrown out in limine. The only exception to such a case would be where such party pleads of having re-entered possession and establishes such fact. The question was also considered in a slightly different context in Muralidhar Naik and Another Vs. Chatrubhuja Padhan and Others, where it was observed as follows: ...A Magistrate in exercise of the jurisdiction under the section cannot reagitate a dispute that has been settled by a competent Court and give a declaration in favour of a party whose claim to title and subsisting possession has already been negatived in a very recent contested litigation, since starting of proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances would tantamount to encouragement of defiance to the decrees of Civil Court and paralyse the administration of justice...exception to this principle has been laid down, viz. are the cases where the Civil Court decision is old enough making room for possibilities of subsequent disturbance of the state of things found and pronounced to have been ones existing. To bring the case within the ambit of this exception the party who claims possession contrary to the delivery of possession through Civil Court must allege and prove the circumstances under which he has acquired possession subsequent to the decree of the Civil Court. To bring the case within the ambit of this exception the party who claims possession contrary to the delivery of possession through Civil Court must allege and prove the circumstances under which he has acquired possession subsequent to the decree of the Civil Court. Though the observations made therein were made in relation to an earlier decision of a Civil Court, nevertheless the reasonings apply with full force also to a previous decision u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and I do not see any reason to hold the contrary. Similar conclusion was also reached in 1972(1) C.W.R. 314 (Chaman Singh and Ors. v. Brajaraj Singh and Ors.) where though in a previous second appeal possession of the property had been held as delivered through Court, yet in a subsequent 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding a written statement was filed by the unsuccessful party of he having not been dispossessed in the civil litigation and that the delivery of possession did not affect his possession. It was held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Misra that had it been his plea that though possession had been taken in the civil litigation and he had bean dispossessed, he had come into possession subsequently by dispossessing the successful party, there would have been room for examination of the claim or possession on the basis of long interval between the Civil Court order and that of the 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding but in view of the written statement filed in the 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding, such question did not fall for consideration at all. Identical conclusions were also reached in two other decisions in 1978 C.L.R. (Cri) 58 (Umakanta Singh Bariha v. Jagannath Misra and Ors.) and 1984 (I) O.L.R. 1039 (Kirtan Jena v. Biswanath Swain and Anr.). 4. So far as the present case is concerned, the objections and the additional objections filed by the Petitioner do not show any averment of either Raghunath, second party No. 1 in the previous proceeding or Charuchandra his son, the vendor of the present Petitioner, to have come into possession of the land subsequently dispossessing the opposite parties. 4. So far as the present case is concerned, the objections and the additional objections filed by the Petitioner do not show any averment of either Raghunath, second party No. 1 in the previous proceeding or Charuchandra his son, the vendor of the present Petitioner, to have come into possession of the land subsequently dispossessing the opposite parties. No such case having been made out, the learned Magistrate clearly erred in law in entertaining the second proceeding in spite of the order in the previous proceeding having been pointed out and brought to his notice and indeed in the police report itself on the basis of which 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding was initiated such fact had also been stated. It is clear that the learned Magistrate did not keep the true position of law in view while deciding the question and hence no interference is called for to the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 5. In the result, the revision has no merit and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed