Judgment S.Roy and N.S.Rao JJ. 1. An application his been filed for amendment of the writ petition. Heard. The prayer is allowed. The amendment petition shall form part of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on merit. 2. In a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), the Executive Magistrate found possession of the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 4 and 15 filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application and declared possession of these respondents There after the petitioner moved this Court against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. But the petitioner lost. An application was filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 15 before respondent No. 2 with a prayer to give effect of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Respondent No. 2 by order dated 9-11-1987 held that in order to give effect to the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, it was necessary to give delivery of possession of the disputed property to respondent Nos. 4 to 15. Against the order, the petitioner filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 30-11-1987 (annexure 11) refused to interfere with the order of respondent No. 2. 3. Sec.145 (4) of the Code provides that the Magistrate, on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties shall decide, if possible, whether any of the parties was, on the date the proceeding was initiated, in possession of the subject of dispute. Proviso to that sub-section provides that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under Sub-section (1) drawing up the proceeding, he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under Sub-section (1). 4. 4. The proviso introduces a fiction, so to say, which empowers the Magistrate to treat deem possession of a party under two situations; (a) if any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate; or after that date and before proceeding was drawn up. In this case we are concerned with the proviso. 5. Sub-section (6), inter alia, provides that if the Magistrate decides one of the parties should be treated as being in such possession envisaged under proviso to Sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed. 6. In this case, respondent No. 2 could have proceeded to restore possession to respondent Nos. 4 to 15 if the final order was passed keeping in view any of the situations envisaged in the proviso to Sub-section (4). We have perused the final order. It is clear from the order that no finding was recorded into consideration either of the two situations envisaged in Sub-section (4) in deciding the question of possession. As no such finding was recorded in the final order, respondent No. 2 could not have proceeded to restore possession of the property to respondent Nos. 4 to 15. The petitioner, therefore, must succeed in this application. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed and the orders passed by respondent No. on 9-11-1987 and the learned Sessions Judge, dated 30-11-1987 are quashed.