JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - A Petitioner u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Petitioner (first party) before the Executive Magistrate alleging breach of peace in respect of 5 decimals in plot No 555, 17 decimals in plot No. 97, 22 decimals in plot No. 101, 35 decimals in plot No. 464 and 20 decimals of land in plot No. 613 of M.S. khata No. 48 of village Papanga in Sambalpur district. The petition discloses that there are five members of the second party who are opposite parties in this case including Sankar Mahakur. In the preliminary order drawn up on 17-11-1984 the name of Sankar Mahakur does not appear. Copy of the preliminary order was served on all the members of the second party except Sankar Mahakur. The record of the case reveals that he did not enter appearance in the case obviously because he was neither served with a copy of the preliminary order nor any notice. In the impugned order, however, he has been shown as second party No. 5. 2. In this proceeding while the Petitioner claims possession in respect of the subject of dispute on the date of the preliminary order, opposite party No. 1 by filing his own written statement has claimed possession in respect of plot Nos. 101, 464 and 613. The case came up to the stage of hearing, but the first party did not produce his witnesses and so there was no full-fledged hearing of the case. On behalf of opposite party No. 1, the Executive Magistrate was pressed to take up the possession of the above mentioned three plots specifically claimed by him. So without recording any oral evidence, but on the basis of documentary evidence and arguments advanced before him, the Executive Magistrate by the impugned order declared possession of opposite party No. 1 in respect of those three plots and further directed that the case shall proceed in respect of the balance two plots. This order has been challenged in this Court mainly on the ground that there should not have been a piecemeal hearing of the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. This order has been challenged in this Court mainly on the ground that there should not have been a piecemeal hearing of the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. It is not known at what stage Sankar Mahakur was impleaded as a party: But since his name appears as a member of the second party in the impugned order, it is presumed that he is a party from the very inception although his name did not find place in the preliminary order and the notice. Manifestly he was not before the Court when the impugned order was passed, because there is nothing on record to show that copy of the preliminary order or any other notice was served on him or be entered appearance through counsel. So there is a technical defect to the effect that the impugned order was passed in the absence of one of the parties in the proceeding. If for any reason Sankar Mahakur appears at a later stage of the proceeding and claims possession in respect of these three plots and the Executive Magistrate is called upon to decide his claim vis-a-vis the claim of any other member of the second party or the first party, there is every likelihood of an inconsistent order which according to law should be avoided. That is why it is well said that a cause should be disposed of after due notice to all the parties so that there shall be no grievance of violation of the principle of natural justice or inconsistency of any order that the Court may pass. Without going into the merits of the claim of opposite party No. 1 or the Petitioner which has to be determined ultimately by the Executive Magistrate, I am bound to vacate the impugned order solely on the ground that it was passed in the absence of one of the parties to the proceeding. I would, however, observe that the Executive Magistrate shall be free to enquire as to at what stage the name of Sankar Mahakur was introduced in the petition u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. With regard to the piecemeal bearing of the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, no direct decision of any of the Courts was cited by the learned Counsel for the parties, but a decision reported in Mathuralal Vs. Bhanwarlal and Another, was cited by Mr. 4. With regard to the piecemeal bearing of the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, no direct decision of any of the Courts was cited by the learned Counsel for the parties, but a decision reported in Mathuralal Vs. Bhanwarlal and Another, was cited by Mr. J.P. Misra in which it was held: The scheme of Sections 145 and 146 is that the Magistrate. On being satisfied about the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace, issues a preliminary order stating the grounds of his satisfaction and calling upon the parties to appear before him and submit their written statements. Then he proceeds to peruse the statements, to receive and to take evidence and to decide which of the parties was in possession on the date of the preliminary order. On the other hand if he is unable to decide who was in such possession or if he is of the view that none of the parties was in such possession he may say so. If he decides that one of the parties was in possession, he declares the possession of such party. In the other two situations he attaches the property. Thus a proceeding begun with a preliminary order must be followed up by an enquiry and end with the Magistrate deciding in one of three ways and making consequential orders. There is no half way house, there is no question of stopping in the middle and leaving the parties to go to the Civil Court. Proceeding may however be stopped at any time if one or other of the parties satisfies the Magistrate that there has never been or there is no longer any dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace. If there is no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace, the foundation for the jurisdiction of the:Magistrate disappears. The Magistrate cancels the preliminary order. This is provided by Section 145 sub-so (5). Except for the reason that there is no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace and as provided by Section 145(5), a proceeding initiated by a preliminary order u/s 145(1) must run its full course. The Magistrate cancels the preliminary order. This is provided by Section 145 sub-so (5). Except for the reason that there is no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace and as provided by Section 145(5), a proceeding initiated by a preliminary order u/s 145(1) must run its full course. The above observation shows that once a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is initiated, it should end logically after running its full course without any final order in respect of a part of the subject of dispute being passed in between. Further, for the convenience of the parties and to take into consideration as overall picture of the case based on oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, it is desirable that a case should not ordinarily be tried piecemeal as in the case of a civil suit for which there is specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. In other words, without fettering the discretion of a Magistrate, it can well be laid down that as far as practicable and unless justice would demand, there shall be no piecemeal heating of a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The proceeding has become about six years old. It is desirable to dispose of the same as early as possible. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that after passing of the impugned order, opposite party No. 1 has taken over possession of the three plots. Since the impugned order has been vacated, the parties are bound to be restored to the original position, as on the date of the preliminary order. In order to restore status quo ante, the Executive Magistrate shall pass necessary orders after hearing the parties. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order is vacated. The case is remitted back to the Court of the Executive Magistrate for hearing and disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The L.C.R. be sent back forthwith. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed