JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition arises out of an order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 3.11.1987 whereby the learned Judge has accepted the revision petition filed by non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Goverdhandas and has set aside the order of the learned Assistant Collector, Jodhpur dated 31.12.1984, by which, the learned Assistant Collector, Jodhpur has held that on 25.7.1977, petitioner Madanlal was in possession of the disputed Ora and, therefore, non-petitioner Goverdhandas was directed to hand over the possession of this Ora to petitioner Madanlal. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that originally, this house in dispute belonged to one Mst. Ramadevi. It is alleged that a portion of this house was let out by Mst. Ramadevi to non- petitioner Goverdhandas and a part of it i.e. the Ora in dispute was let out to one Shri Ganeshilal for running a school but later, he closed the School in this house and put his articles in Ora. It was vacated by him on 26.5.1977 and its possession was handed over to petitioner Madanlal, who alleges himself to be the owner of this house belonging to Mst. Ramadevi on the basis of a will executed by her in his favour. It is alleged that non-petitioner Goverdhandas broke open the Folks of this Ora after it was handed over to Madanlal by Ganeshilal Petitioner Madanlal filed a complaint under S. 145 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of City Magistrate, Jodhpur alleging that non-petitioner Goverdhandas is a police employee and has threatened him with his life. He has created such conditions that at any moment, the breach of peace can occur and therefore, the disputed property be attached. A preliminary order was passed by the learned Assistant Collector holding that circumstance did exist which show that there is a likelihood of breach of peace and, therefore. he registered it case under S. 145 (1) Criminal Procedure Code and asked the parties to put tip their claims. Certain affidavits were filed by both the parties but later, evidence was recorded and on the basis of the evidence, the Court came to the conclusion that disputed Ora was actually in possession of petitioner Madanlal and he has been forcibly dispossessed from it within two months from the date of preliminary order. Certain affidavits were filed by both the parties but later, evidence was recorded and on the basis of the evidence, the Court came to the conclusion that disputed Ora was actually in possession of petitioner Madanlal and he has been forcibly dispossessed from it within two months from the date of preliminary order. On revision the learned revisional court took the view that actually, no breach of peace existed and, therefore, this case ought not to have been registered and when that was not the case, the learned lower court was wrong in deciding the possession of the parties. The learned revisional court dealt with only one point i.e. breach of peace. 3. I have heard Mr. T.S. Champawat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Narpatsingh, the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 and Mrs. Kamlesh Joshi, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 4. Mr. T.S. Champawat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a finding of existence of breach of peace is not necessary at the time when a final order is passed nor is there any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code requiring such a finding in the final order. Once a preliminary order drawn up by the Magistrate sets out the reasons for holding that a breach of the peace exists it is not necessary that the breach of peace should continue at every stage of the proceedings unless there is clear evidence to show that the dispute has ceased to exist so as to bring the case within the ambit of sub-s. (5) of s. 145. Unless, such a contingency arises the proceedings have to be carried to their logical and culminating in the final order under sub. s. (6) of s. 145 Cr. P. C. In this respect; reliance has been placed on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajpati v. Bachan (1980 Cr. L. J.-1276). 5. I have perused the preliminary order drawn by the learned lower court dated 25.7.1977. wherein the learned lower court has set out the reasons for holding that a breach of the peace exists. L. J.-1276). 5. I have perused the preliminary order drawn by the learned lower court dated 25.7.1977. wherein the learned lower court has set out the reasons for holding that a breach of the peace exists. In this case, the learned lower court i.e. revisional court has observed that non-petitioner Goverdhan filed an application before the learned lower court that there is no likelihood of the breach of peace and, therefore, the proceedings should be dropped. A request was also made that civil proceedings about the vacation of the same premises have been filed against the non-petitioner by the petitioner and. therefore, these proceedings should be dropped. Actually, as per the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajpali's case (supra), the continuance of the breach of peace is not essential. So far as this application is concerned. firstly now it has not been passed by Mr. Narpatsingh, the learned counsel for non-petitioner Goverdhandass and secondly, the case could have been remanded to the learned trial court for decision on that application but entire order could not have been set aside on that account. Of course, it has been observed by the learned lower court that even at the time when' proceedings were initiated, no breach of peace existed but that was beyond the scope of this revision because no revision was filed against the preliminary order. The parties came in revision against the final order and, therefore, it should have decided the revision on merits on the basis of the pleas that have been raised by the parties. Thus, the order of the learned revisional court cannot be sustained and this revision is fit to be accepted. Although Mr. Champawat has submitted that this Court should set aside the order of the learned revisional court and restore the order of the learned trial court whereas Mr. Narpatsingh, the learned counsel appearing for non-petitioner Goverdhandass has submitted that he has raised some other pleas in the revision filed by him before the learned revisional court as regards the merits of the case but these pleas have not been dealt with by the learned revisional court. Narpatsingh, the learned counsel appearing for non-petitioner Goverdhandass has submitted that he has raised some other pleas in the revision filed by him before the learned revisional court as regards the merits of the case but these pleas have not been dealt with by the learned revisional court. He has, therefore, submitted that on the basis of Rajpati's case (supra), the case of the petitioner should not have been thrown out but at the same time when he has taken all the barons in his revision about the merits of the case and they have not been dealt with by the learned revisional court, this case should be remanded back to the learned revisional court for deciding his revision on merits. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and I feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case, when the pleas taken by the non-petitioner in his revision have not been considered and decided, the case should be remanded back to the learned revisional court for deciding the revision petition on merits. 7. In the result. I accept this revision, set aside the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 3.11.1987 and remand the case back to take him for deciding the revision petition on merits after hearing both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned revisional court en November 25, 1988. 8. Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned revisional court forthwith.Revision Accepted. *******