JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed against the revisional order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 19-2-1982 whereby he has set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jetaran dated 16-10-1979, by which the learned Magistrate has dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.PC in exercise of his powers under Section 145(5) Cr.PC and remanded the case back to him. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are that non-petitioner Manak Chand purchased land bearing Khasra No. 897 in village Lambia measuring 75 and 1/2 bighas from the petitioners on the basis of the sale deed. The mutation was recorded in favour of non-petitioner Manakchand. This purchase was made in S.Y. 2013. It is alleged that Manakchand bequeathed 25 bighas of land each in favour of non-petitioners Dharmchand and Prakashchand and the land was mutated in their favour. The remaining 25 and 1/2 bighas of land remained with him. It is alleged that on 29-5-1979, Manakchand went to cultivate this field on behalf of himself, and his grand sons Dharmchand and Prakashchand Non-petitioner Dharm Chand at the relevant time was living outside and non-petitioner Prakash Chand was minor and so, Manakchand was looking after this field. It is alleged that on that day the petitioners did not allow him to cultivate the field and threatened to kill him. On this, he reported the matter to the police on 30-5-1979, on the basis of which, a case under Section 147, 447 and 426 Indian Penal Code was registered and as situation became tense, proceedings under Section 145 Cr PC were initiated by the SHO Kalu. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jetaran has drawn a preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.PC. and attached the land under Section 146(1) Cr.PC and the Patwari of of the area was appointed as a receiver. Later, a reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners in which, it was claimed that the land belongs to them and they are Khatedars of this land. If any false sale deed has been executed by Manakchand, they are not at all responsible for it. They have claimed that Manakchand is not in possession of this land. Later, a reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners in which, it was claimed that the land belongs to them and they are Khatedars of this land. If any false sale deed has been executed by Manakchand, they are not at all responsible for it. They have claimed that Manakchand is not in possession of this land. They have also initiated proceedings before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jetaran on 23-4-1979 requesting that Manakchand be restrained from interfering with their peaceful possession on the basis of which the ex-parte injunction was issued in favour of the petitioners. Certain affidavits were filed in support of that application. A reply was filed on 16-10-1979. On the basis of that reply and the affidavits along with documents filed before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has dropped the proceedings in exercise of his powers under Section 145(5), Cr PC. 3. A revision petition was filed against that order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge took the view that once the land has been attached, simply because the breach of peace does not exist after the issuance of the attachment order, that is no ground to drop the proceedings. In this respect, reliance was placed on Rajpati v. Bachan [ AIR 1981 SC 18 ] wherein it has been observed that once a preliminary order is 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 subsection (5) of Section 145, unless such a contigency arises, the proceedings have to be carried to their logical end culminating in the final order under Sub-section (6) of Section 145. In this case no evidence was recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and still, he came to the conclusion that there existed no breach of peace. The entire basis of that decision was the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners. 4. I have heard Mr. S.K. Mathur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. The entire basis of that decision was the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners. 4. I have heard Mr. S.K. Mathur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. L.M. Lodha, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 5. It was submitted that in such proceedings, the Court should confine itself to the rights of the parties as regards the actual possession on the date of the preliminray order or within two months prior to it. It should not decide the rights of the parties on the basis of title existing in favour of any of the contesting parties. In this respect reliance was placed on Smt. Jimani v. Mohanlal 1986 Cr. LJ (Raj.) 97. 6. It was further submitted that when the revenue proceedings were initiated by the petitioner, actually proceedings under Section 145, Cr.PC could not have been initiated. In this respect, reliance was placed on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Pari Mahant v. State of UP and Ors. [ AIR 1985 SC 472 ] and a decision of this Court in Meghraj v. State 1936 Cr. LR (Raj) 395. I must say that these decisions are of no avail so far as this case is concerned. The entire basis of the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners and that reply which forms the basis of the impugned order is neither signed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner nor by the parties concerned and, therefore, on the basis of such unsigned reply, which is not a reply in the eye of law proceedings should not have 'been dropped. I, therefore, feel that the impugned order of the learned revisional court has to be maintained. 7. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition and it is here by dismissed. I, therefore, feel that the impugned order of the learned revisional court has to be maintained. 7. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition and it is here by dismissed. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jetaran should ask the petitioners to file their reply afresh as the reply filed on 16-10-1979 is not a reply in the eye of law and, then he should proceed in the matter according to the directions issued by the learned revisional court and if it is alleged that any civil proceedings have been initiated as regards this property by any of the parties where dispute about the possession of the property is involved and certain orders have been issued by the concerned civil or revenue courts then the matter should be decided in the light of Ram Sumerpuri Mahant's case (supra).Revision Dismissed. *******