JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This criminal revision is directed against order of Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnore, allowing the revision of opposite party No. 1, setting aside the order of the Magistrate in proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and remanding the case to the Magistrate for fresh disposal with the direction to record clear finding on the question of possession. 2. Brief facts are that on the application of opposite party No. 1 Deoraj Singh, Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. in respect of a piece of land. He also passed an order restraining both the parties from disturbing the crop on the plot. 3. On behalf of revisionists it was contended that the land is in joint possession. Learned Magistrate did not hold enquiry as laid down in Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. He relied upon certain documents. He held that the property in dispute is in joint possession and dropped the proceedings. 4. Against this, the opposite party No. 1 preferred revision before Sessions Judge. This revision was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate should have held proceedings according to law. He should have held enquiry and then if only on the evidence adduced by the parties he came to the conclusion that the disputed property has been in joint possession he could have dropped the proceedings. Hence he allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the case to the Magistrate. 5. Being aggrieved revisionists have come to this Court. 6. The record of the Magistrate has been perused. Parties have been heard. It is obvious that the Magistrate did not proceed in accordance with Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. He did not record oral evidence of the parties. Only on the basis of contention advanced on behalf of revisionists and some documents he allowed the objection of the revisionists that the property in dispute is in joint possession and so the proceedings under Section 145 cannot continue. There can be no quarrel with the principle that there can be no proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of property in joint possession. There can be no quarrel with the principle that there can be no proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of property in joint possession. But when there is case of one party that he is in exclusive possession and the other party claims that the property is in joint possession the Magistrate is bound to hold an enquiry under Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. He cannot discard the case of exclusive possession without holding enquiry under Section 145 (4). Without an enquiry under Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. any finding or observation of the-learned Magistrate that the property is in joint possession cannot be upheld. 7. Order of the Sessions Judge is thus absolutely correct. On behalf of the revisionists reliance has been placed on certain orders passed by revenue authorities. It has been further contended that dispute between parties is pending before the consolidation authorities. The orders of the revenue authorities and the effect of the proceedings pending before the consolidation authorities, if any, can be examined by the Magistrate at appropriate stage. This court need not comment upon the documents or the proceedings before the consolidation authorities in any manner. 8. In result, this revision has no force and must be dismissed. 9. Revision is dismissed. Stay order dated 20.12.1984 staying further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order is vacated. Lower court record be sent back within ten days.