G. D. DUBE, J. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Jaunpur, refusing to implead the revisionist as a party. 2. The facts of this case are very brief. On an application of Jai Prakash (opposity-party No. 10) and report of Station Officer, Police-Station Buxa, district Jaunpur, the Magistrate had passed a preliminary order dated 3rd August, 1988. On 30-8-1988, the revisionist had moved an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that he was owner and in possession over the property. He was away at Bombay to the proceedings under Sec tion 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the-Code) were initiated. The learned Magistrate had dropped the proceedings on 13-9- 1988 on the ground that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. He released the property in favour of opposite-parties 2 and 9. The applica tion of the revisionist for being impleaded was also rejected. It is worth mentioning that opposite-party No. 10 had riled a revision against the order of the Magistrate before the Sessions Judge. It was rejected. The opposite-party No. 10 has filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge passed in the revision. 3. The opposite-party No. 10 has challenged the propriety and legality of the orders of the Magistrate as well as the Session Judge. 4. The opposite-parties 2 to 9 had contested the impleadment applica tion of the revisionist on the ground that he was not at all in possession and had no locus standi to become a party. 5. It was argued from the side of learned counsel for the revisionist that in sub-section (5) of Section 145 of the Code, the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to implead a person. The lower court was only required to see that the person seeking impleadment was an interested person. Since the revisionist was saying that be was owner and in possession of the property, then it was sufficient to indicate that he was interested person. He had come to the court at the earliest opportunity as soon as he came to know about the initia tion of the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties 2 to 9 urged that simply saying that the revisionist was owner and in possession was not sufficient. He had come to the court at the earliest opportunity as soon as he came to know about the initia tion of the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties 2 to 9 urged that simply saying that the revisionist was owner and in possession was not sufficient. The proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code are of summary nature. Ihey are intended to avoid breach of peace in respect of certain property in dispute between the two parties. The revisionist had not shown that there was any apprehension of brsuch of peace between him and the other two parties. 7. The matters involved in the writ petition are different. The point involved in this revision is not involved in the said writ petition. The matter in this case is confined only to this matter whether the revisionist had made out a case as to entitle him to be impleaded as a party, in view of sub-section (5) of Section 145 of the code which runs as under :- " (5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final. " 8. The application moved by the revisionist xlid not indicate as to how he was in possession over the property in dispute. He simply stated that he was in possession over the property in dispute. There was a katchcha house over the site After this kachcha construction fell down, he constructed a shop in which he had carrying on business. It was urged that the opposite-parties in collusion with the police are trying to take possession and had got the property attached. This statement was very vague. No document was attached with the petition supporting the allegations regarding the existence of old house and construction of a new building on the site. On such a vaeue and general allegation, the learned Magistrate could not come to the conclusion that the revisionist was an interested party and should be impleaded. 9. This statement was very vague. No document was attached with the petition supporting the allegations regarding the existence of old house and construction of a new building on the site. On such a vaeue and general allegation, the learned Magistrate could not come to the conclusion that the revisionist was an interested party and should be impleaded. 9. The learned Magistrate has observed in the paragraph dealing the application of the revisionist in his judgment that the revisionist was claiming title which cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C The copy of application, which is annexed with the affidavit filed by the revisionist, deals mainly with the title of the revisionist only. It was stated that he was sole owner in possession. I have already stated that this simnle application without any corroborative evidence was not at all sufficient material before the Magistrate as to indicate that the revisionist was an interested parson. The police too had not reported that the revisionist was an interested party. There was no inkling to indicate the interest of the revisionisf. Consequently, there was no justification to implead the revisionist. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited Ganga Singh v. Mohd. Shah Khan, 1975, AWC 580. In this case, an application had been moved by a person to be impleaded as party wten the matter was pending before the Munsif for decision under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as the provision existed at the relevant time. The learned Munsif had forwarded the whole matter to the learned Magistrate who had made a reference to the Court of Munsif for disposal. The learned Magistrate had disposed the application and allowed the impleading of the said person who had moved an application before the Munsif. In this case, it was held by a Single Judge of this Court (Honble Hari Swarup, J.) that once the Magistrate gets information that some other person is also concerned in the dispute he can issue notice to him also to show cause because the purpose of Section 145 of the Code is the prevention of breach of peace by any person. The matter, in this case, is entirely different. The matter, in this case, is entirely different. The learned Magistrate had dropped the proceedings holding that there was no apprehension of breach of peace between the parties which had been originally arrayed at the time of preliminary order. It was the satisfaction of the Magistrate as to whether there was any apprehension of breach of peace between the revisionist and the other two parties. The learned Magistrate had held that the revisionist was claiming title in the property. On examination of the record, I find that there was no jurisdictional error in the matter. 11. Learned counsel for opposite-parties has cited Mahadeo Prasad v. Ram Saran, AIR 1945 Oudh 12. In this case, it was held that a parson having no personal right to a disputed property need not be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. 12. My attention was also drawn by learned counsel for opposite-parties 2 to 9 to Bindhyachal Prasad v. Madho Singh, AIR 1946 Patna 330. In this case, the application had been moved by the concerned party for being im pleaded aticr the learned Magistrate had decided the matter on bth April, 1944. The application was moved for the first time on 18-10-1944 after the case had gone back to the learned Magistrate for issuing a formal order in sub-section (6) of Section 145 of the Code. It was held that, in these circumstances, the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application. This case is based on entirely different facts. Therefore, any ratio of this case is applicable to the present matter, 13. No other point has been pressed. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no force in this revision. It is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .