JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - One of the second party members has filed this revision challenging the final order under section, 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceeding was initiated on police report. On 25-8-1977 the preliminary order was passed. In the preliminary order the land in dispute was described to be an area of A 128 decimals of khat a No. 41, plot No. 224. After passing of the preliminary order the second party members filed ail application alleging the land in dispute is actually plot No. 47 in khata No. 41 and not plot No. 224. This application of the second party was rejected by the trial Court and the final order was passed on 6.6-1979. In the final order passed by the learned Magistrate the possession of the first party was declared regarding plot No. 47 in khata No. 41 and not regarding plot No. 224. Being aggrieved by the said order, the second party filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 32 of 1979. The ordering portion of the criminal revision is as follows: He should, after hearing both the parties, satisfy himself that the dispute concerns plot No. 47. Thereafter he-should revise the preliminary order, allow the parties to file additional statements, if any, and adduce further evidence and thereafter hearing the parties record his finding with regard to possession. 2. After the order of remand was passed by the learned Sessions Judge the learned Magistrate revised the preliminary, order on 8-2-1982 and substituted plot No. 224 and amended it to plot No. 47 and also described in the said order by its local name Nisani Beda. After the said order, both the parties were noticed and the second party filed fresh written statement on 5-4-1982. On 9-11-1982 the second party filed a petition praying for attachment of the disputed ]and describing the plot number as 47 and also its local name. The learned Magistrate considering the said petition ordered that the Officer-in-Charge is to select a third party as a, receiver and keep the disputed land in his zima till the final order of the, proceeding and to harvest the crops by the receiver, in the presence of both,the parties. The proceeding continued and both the sides adduced evidence and final order was passed, on 29-1-1985 declaring the possession of the first party. The proceeding continued and both the sides adduced evidence and final order was passed, on 29-1-1985 declaring the possession of the first party. This final order passed by the learned Magistrate declaring the possession in favour of the first party is under challenge. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits: (a) that while passing the second preliminary order dated 8-2-1982 the learned Magistrate has not recorded satisfaction regarding apprehension of breach of peace. (b) that since the plot number has been changed on 8-2-1982 there will be two preliminary orders and the learned Magistrate did not have any jurisdiction give the finding of the possession in reference to the first preliminary order dated 25-8-1977; and (c) that the Sessions Judge had given the direction to revise the preliminary order after hearing both the sides and being satisfied. that there is apprehension of breach of peace. Non-compliance of the direction of the learned Sessions Judge vitiated the entire proceeding and the final order is to be quashed. For thes propositions, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner relies on the decisions, reported in Krushna Sahu and Ors. v. Ghusuru Sahu and Ors. 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1553 and Dhoiram Sahu v. Sambhu Das and Ors. 42 (1976) C.L.T. 241. 4. The learned Advocate for the opp. parties submits: (a) that the learned Magistrate bad the jurisdiction to amend the preliminary order as there was a clerical mistake. (b) that once both the sides are aware of the lands which was in dispute and have taken part in the 145. Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding they do not have any further right to challenge the final order; and (c) that it being the case of the second party that the dispute is regarding plot No. 47 and, on their application the land having been attached the final order cannot be challenged by the principles of acquiescence. The learned Advocate for the opp. parties relies on Durjan Singh Vs. The State and Others State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal S/o. Lalkaji and Ors. AIR 1957 Nag. 27 Jagdeo Mandal and Ors. v. Prasadi Mandal and Ors. 1980 B.L.J.R. 518 and Krushna Sahu's Case 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1553 (supra). 5. In Krushna Sahu's case 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1553 (supra), it has been held: But the next point seems to be fatal to the main tainability of the proceeding. AIR 1957 Nag. 27 Jagdeo Mandal and Ors. v. Prasadi Mandal and Ors. 1980 B.L.J.R. 518 and Krushna Sahu's Case 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1553 (supra). 5. In Krushna Sahu's case 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1553 (supra), it has been held: But the next point seems to be fatal to the main tainability of the proceeding. It is settled law that a preliminary order in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure determines the Magistrate's jurisdiction to deal with the case. It was obligatory on the learned Magistrate to alter the preliminary order and in fact finding of possession was to be given with reference to the altered preliminary order because a new property was inserted. That has not been done. In that view of the matter the proceeding is vitiated and has to be quashed. In Dhoiram Sahu's case 42 (1976) C.L.T. 241 (supra) his Lordships had quashed a preliminary order as while passing the preliminary order there was no apprehension of breach of peace regarding one parcel of land but ordered that the 145, Code of Criminal Porcedure proceeding will continue for the rest of the land. In Durjan Singh's case 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1553 (supra) the question before the Court was whether omission to pass a preliminary order or stage grounds of satisfaction could render the final order unsustainable and in that context Modi, J. speaking for the Court observed: ....But where the parties fully know their respective cases and have fought the dispute out without raising any objection at the appropriate opportunity and then seek to avoid the adverse final result on account of mere procedure irregularities, then such a proceeding will not for such reason be invalidated. In this connection we cannot do better than to quote the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 P.C. 67 . In this connection we cannot do better than to quote the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 P.C. 67 . xx xx xx xx Applying the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the above case we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that where there are materials on the record vesting a Magistrate with jurisdiction u/s 145(1) or in other words, where there is a dispute relating to land or water or boundaries thereof within the local limit of his jurisdiction, and where be is satisfied from a police report or other information that such a dispute is likely to cause a breach of the peace, a mere omission on the part of the Magistrate to draw up a formal preliminary order or his failure to state the grounds, of his being so satisfied are, by themselves, more irregularities of procedure and cannot have the effect vitiating the entire proceedings unless such failure has resulted in prejudice of failure of justice. In State of Madhya Pradesh's Case AIR 1957 Nag. 27 (supra) after the preliminary order was passed the preliminary order was amended to include several more fields comprising of some more areas. In that context of the matter their Lordships have held: ... The only two essential conditions which confer jurisdiction upon a Magistrate u/s 145, are restyle that there should be a dispute over land or water and secondly that such a dispute should be likely to cause breach of the peace. Both these conditions were fulfilled in the instant case. Even if additional land was specified later on it was in our opinion an error which does not effect the validity of the proceedings Jagdeo Mandal and Ors. v. Prasadi Mandal and Ors. 42 (1976) C.L.T. 241 (supra) was a case where a preliminary order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding was drawn up before the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force. After the new Code came into force the preliminary order was amended and some more lands were included in the preliminary order. Question arose before the Court whether the procedure under the new Code would be applied or the procedure under the old Code was to be followed. In that context Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. speaking for the Court observed: ... Question arose before the Court whether the procedure under the new Code would be applied or the procedure under the old Code was to be followed. In that context Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. speaking for the Court observed: ... Therefore, in my opinion it has to be held that by mere addition of some more land to the proceeding a new proceeding does not come into existence and tire old one continues and it has to be disposed of as a pending proceeding; 6. From the facts of this case and the decisions discussed above. I am of the opinion that after the amendment of the preliminary order since the second party members have cooperated in the proceedings and have adduced evidence and are aware that the dispute is in respect of plot No. 47. They cannot challenge the final order as no prejudice has been caused to them. The submission that non-compliance of the direction of the learned Sessions Judge by the Magistrate before amending the preliminary order will entail the quashing of the final order is not acceptable. The direction of the learned Sessions Judge was for ascertaining the existence of breach of peace regarding plot No. 47. Which the second party members themselves Bled an application subsequent to the amendment of the preliminary order to attach the land and craps of plot No. 47, stating in a petition that there was imminent breach of peace. The final order cannot be, challenged by the second party members for not giving opportunity of hearing to ascertain the breach of peace regarding plat No. 47 before amendment. In a case where the preliminary order is amended on a subsequent date the Magistrate has to give finding of possession in reference to the first date of the preliminary order. The decision of the learned Magistrate is correct. The Criminal Revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed