JUDGMENT The present revision petition is against the order dated 20.1.1989 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 1987, reversing the preliminary order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh, dated 24.11.1987 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 540 of 1987, under section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that there is a dispute of possession between the parties over the lands Khasra No. 58/1 area 5.030 Hectares and Khasra No. 896/1 area 2.031 Hectares, which are in exclusive possession of the applicants. Since the non-applicants tried to take the law in their own hands and wanted to interfere in the peaceful physical possession of the applicants, the applicants approached the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 145, CLP.C.. On 24.11.1987, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh, passed a preliminary order attaching the lands and issuing notice to the non-applicants for submission of their written reply but the non-applicants, instead of submitting their written reply, approached the revisional Court and the revisional Court has wrongly reversed the preliminary order, which is of an interlocutory nature and no revision lies against such an order. The non-applicants have a remedy of submitting written reply to the trial magistrate showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed. Learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that in the revisional Court itself, in the stay application filed by the non-applicants, in para 2 the non-applicants have admitted that there was partition between the parties and the parties are cultivating and are in exclusive cultivating possession of their respective fields as per partition. That means, the exclusive possession of the respective parties is itself admitted by the non-applicants. The dispute thereafter shows nothing but apprehension of breach of peace. The order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside. The submission of the learned counsel for the non-applicants is that after partition, proceedings are still pending for recording the names of the parties. The lands in dispute being recorded jointly, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. The order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside. The submission of the learned counsel for the non-applicants is that after partition, proceedings are still pending for recording the names of the parties. The lands in dispute being recorded jointly, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. The order dated 24.11.1987 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh, being of preliminary nature, the revisional Court should not have 'interfered in its revisional jurisdiction, as required under sub-section (2) of section 397, Cr.P.C. Moreover, according to the own admission of the non-applicants in para 2 of their stay application filed before the revisional Court, the parties are in exclusive possession of their respective portions after partition. In case the non-applicants still want to interfere in the possession of the applicants it will clearly amount to breach of peace. There being an apprehension of breach of peace, it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was wrong in passing such a preliminary order. No finding is given by the revisional Court to the effect that there was no apprehension of breach of peace on the date of passing of the order. In view of this, the order passed by the revisional Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. The case is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh. The non-applicants are free to file their reply before that Court. Since the matter is very old, the parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh, on 28.3.1994. The records of the Court below be sent back immediately. No further notice need be given to any of the parties.