S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the 1st party in a proceeding u/s. 145, Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent power of the Court. ( 2 ) ON 9-9-1987, a proceeding u is. 144, Cr. P. C. was initiated and the enquiry report of the Police in respect of Ac. 0. 83 decimals of land in Plot No. 597. On the petition of the member of the 2nd party, the proceeding was converted to one u/s. 145, Cr. P. C. and a preliminary order was passed in respect of the aforesaid land on 30-10-1987. Land was also attached. Service return was directed to be returned by 19-11-1987. Before that date on 17-11-1987, member of the 2nd party prayed to describe the boundary of the said Ac. 0. 83 decimals of land which was accepted. On 21-11-1987, an application was again filed by 2nd party without copy of the same being served on the 1st party to amend the area to 2 acres 56 decimals which is the actual area in dispute. Learned Magistrate having ex parte passed the order accepting the prayer and directing the receiver to take charge of the property. This order was assailed by the 1st party in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the property in dispute has been jointly recorded and initiation of the proceeding is against the decision reported in (1987) 2 Orissa LR 534 (Purna Chandra Biswal v. Brindaban Biswal ). The order of attachment was stayed. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ultimately did not interfere with the order against which an application was filed in this Court where it was urged that there is no scope for adding more lands and that too ex parte. Without interfering with the order of the trial court and of the learned Sessions Judge since such a question did not appear to have been considered by both the forums, I gave liberty to the petitioner to move the trial court for recalling the order dt. 21-11-1987. Learned Magistrate having refused to recall the order on the finding that the order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge and the parties are at daggers drawn which is likely to result in rioting and breach of peace, petitioner has again approached this Court. 21-11-1987. Learned Magistrate having refused to recall the order on the finding that the order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge and the parties are at daggers drawn which is likely to result in rioting and breach of peace, petitioner has again approached this Court. ( 3 ) NORMALLY, in matters of initiation of proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P. C. revisional powers are not to be exercised since question of apprehension of breach of peace is involved which is to be prevented by the Magistrates. Keeping the same in view, I gave liberty to the petitioner to move the trial court to recall the order. When this Court gave liberty to move the trial court, it ought not to have felt bound by the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who did not consider the question of ex parte order without service of copy of the petition on the Advocate for the petitioner and added some more properties. Order of the trial court in vulnerable on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. ( 4 ) UNDER S. 145, Cr. P. C. the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to declare possession of a person in possession on the date of preliminary order or dispossessed within two months from the date of the preliminary order. Thus, date of the preliminary order is one of the important facts for the purpose of exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 145, Cr. P. C. while adding more properties to the proceeding. This should have kept in mind by the learned Magistrate when there was no further material before him excepting an application of the petitioner and the petitioner who had already appeared had no opportunity to explain the same. ( 5 ) LEARNED Magistrate has found that the parties are at daggers drawn and there was likelihood to breach of peace in respect of the two acres 56 decimals of disputed land. If that would be the position, he has the jurisdiction to initiate a fresh proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of the excess land and the question of possession with reference to that date was to be considered. Addition of further land to preliminary order already passed may, however, lead to confusion with regard to the date of possession to be decided in the proceeding itself which is material for the purpose of passing an appropriate order. Addition of further land to preliminary order already passed may, however, lead to confusion with regard to the date of possession to be decided in the proceeding itself which is material for the purpose of passing an appropriate order. ( 6 ) LEARNED Magistrate has also not indicated in the order any circumstance or fact from which he has come to the conclusion that the parties are at daggers drawn. This being a judicial order was to be supported by reasons based on material. Order refusing to recall the order passed earlier cannot thus, be sustained which require reconsideration by the learned Magistrate direct the learned Magistrate to consider the question afresh and also to consider whether the preliminary order already passed for Ac. 0. 83 decimals can be amended to include more area in the light of the discussion made above. ( 7 ) MR. S. Misra-1 learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in (1973) 2 Cut WR 1553 (Krushna Sahu v. Ghusuru Sahu) in support of his contention that a preliminary order cannot be amended. I express no opinion at this stage since I leave the question open to be considered by the learned Magistrate. ( 8 ) BOTH parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 5th Jan. 1989 (Thursday) on which day, learned Magistrate shall fix a date of hearing the question of recalling the order. Till then both parties are restrained from entering upon the disputed land. The receiver is also directed not to make any arrangement with regard to the excess land during that period except Ac. 0. 83 decimals for which the proceeding was initiated at the beginning. ( 9 ) IN the result, this application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed. .