D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision relates to a 145 Cr. P. C. proceeding in which the Executive Magistrate, Chatrapur declared possession in favor of the second party before it. The preliminary order was passed on 12. 11. 1984. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Patitapabana, learned counsel for the petitioner (first party in the lower court) and Miss Dipali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party. Perused the impugned order and the documents filed before the lower court. ( 3 ) THE dispute relates to an area of 4. 38 decimals of land under Patta Nos. 57, 58, 91 and 92 of village Barupada in the district of Ganjam. The first party claims to have been in Possession of the land as a tenant under the second party, which the second party denies, and in his turn claims to be in possession of the land. The first party filed his written statement. The second party did not file any written statement. No oral evidence has also been adduced in the lower court. ( 4 ) ON the point of not filing any written statement, Miss Mahapatra strenuously urged that the memo of argument filed on behalf of the second party was treated as written statement by the court. By no stretch of imagination, a memo of argument, even assuming to have been signed by the party, cannot be considered as written statement bringing out a positive case for the party. The memo has not been verified nor there is any affidavit with regard to the contents thereof. Section 145 Cr. P. C. requires the parties to file written statement. In such cases, the court should insist the parties to file written statement. But this necessarily does not mean that such allowance should be given to the party so as to enable to use it as a leverage to protract the proceeding on the plea to file write statement. In order words, the court shall have all effective control over the proceeding. In the absence of a written statement bringing out clearly the case of the parties, it could not have been proper on the part of the Magistrate to declare possession unless the court comes to a finding that non-filing of the written statement was due to the lashes of the parties. In the absence of a written statement bringing out clearly the case of the parties, it could not have been proper on the part of the Magistrate to declare possession unless the court comes to a finding that non-filing of the written statement was due to the lashes of the parties. If, however, the party in spite of direction files no written statement, the court should be free to proceed with the case. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the evidence on record, Miss Mahapatra submits that the certified copy of the document such as; (a) acknowledgement of delivery of possession of the disputed land in Execution Case No. 7 of 1974 arising out of Title Suit No. 36 of 1972 and (b) certified copy of the order in O. L. R. Appeal No. 4 of 1987 arising out of O. L. R. Case No. 1152 of 1976 amply proves the possession of the second party. I cannot wholly accept the contention of the learned counsel though, no doubt, she is to some extent correct in her submission, the reason bring as follows: ( 6 ) THE certified copy in the execution proceeding does indicate that the second party acknowledged to have taken delivery of possession through court on 30. 1. 1974. But this is the self-serving document of the second party. The writ of deli very of possession has not been proved in this case. The certified copy of the report of the Process Server in delivering possession of the disputed land certainly would have been a better piece of evidence to satisfy the mind of the court that delivery of possession was so given. In the absence of any such report of the Process Server, evidence of any witness if available to the fact of such delivery of possession could have also been a better piece of evidence. Even taking the worst view there was nothing that could have prevented the second party to even examine him and state the fact of such delivery of possession this should have been also in conformity with his case as to the factor of possession. ( 7 ) SO far as the certified copy of the order in O. L. R. appeal No. 4 of 1987 dated 22. 11. ( 7 ) SO far as the certified copy of the order in O. L. R. appeal No. 4 of 1987 dated 22. 11. 1986 is concerned, this no doubt indicates that the appellant court confirmed the order of the Revenue Officer rejecting the prayer of the first party for declaring him as a tenant under section 36-A of the O. L. R. Act. Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel submits that so far as the right of the second party to the land is concerned, the same stands concluded by virtue of this appellate order. Repelling this argument of Miss Mahapatra, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the first party, submits that the O. L. R. revision against that appellate order is still pending. Miss Mahapatra does not dispute the tendency of the revision. Miss Mahapatra is, no doubt, correct in her submission so far as the same relates to the right of the second party to possess (emphasis supplied) the land in question. But this does not indicate the fact of possession itself by the second party as on the date of the preliminary order, since in a 145 proceeding we are more concerned with the fact of actual possession of the disputed land and not the right to possess. No doubt, it is settled law that, the 145 court should respect the orders of the revenue authorities but, I may point out that it would not be always safe for the Magistrate to act add arrive at a conclusion as to the fact of possession merely on the basis of such document unless the party comes forward with a case and adduce evidence to some extent in support of his case in the written statement. In the present case, in the absence of a written statement of the party, I am unable to accept the contention of Miss Mahapatra that the court was correct in wholly relying on the decision of the O. L. R. court on appeal. For this, the order is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The lower court order is set aside. The second party is hereby directed to file written statement within such time so granted by the court. For this, the order is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The lower court order is set aside. The second party is hereby directed to file written statement within such time so granted by the court. Thereafter, the Magistrate shall proceed to take evidence as per law and dispose of the matter within six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. Since by virtue of the order of the lower court the second party is in possession, the first party is hereby prohibited not to interfere with the possession of the second party. This prohibitory order shall cease to have any effect on the passing of the final order by the lower court. Revision allowed. .