Honble SAXENA, J. - Heard learned" counsel for the parties. (2). This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred against the order dt. 15.4.93 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and affirmed the order dt.23.10.92 passed by the Learned Addl. District Magistrate, City, Jodhpur under Section 146 Cr.P.C attaching the subject matter of dispute namely agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 35 comprising 3 Bighs 14 biswas situated in village Poonjla Teh. Jodhpur Distt. Jodhpur. (3). I have heard Shri M.L. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor Shri Thakur and Shri Bhatt learned counsel for non-petitioner no. 2 and carefully perused the relevant record. The main contention of Shri Chaudhary is that the disputed land is in the continuos cultivation possession of the petitioners that the same is part of Khasra no. 35 total area 9 Bigha 14 Biswas, that the disputed land was never demarcated and possession thereof was not handed to non-petitioner no. 2 and that the learned Additional District Magistrate without any sufficient reason arbitrarily issued the preliminary order dt. 25.8.92 and thereafter on the application of non-petitioner no. 2 illegally passed the order of attachment -on 23.10.92. According to him, no notice of the application filed by the non-petitioner no. 2 under section 146[1] Cr.P.C was served on petitioner no. 4 Yudhister. He has further submitted that the petitioners had filed an application under section 91 Cr.P.C for sending for the relevant file from the Tehsildar but the said file was not called for and as such a great prejudice has been caused to them. (4). On the other hand, Shri Bhatt, the learned counsel for non- petitioner no. 2 has vehemently contended that both the courts below have concurrently held that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace existed concerning the disputed land and therefore, the Additional District Magistrate was perfectly justified in issuing the preliminary order, Moreover the preliminary order dt. 25.8.92 has not been challenged by the petitioners. As regards the impugned attachment order dt. 23.10.92 , he has reiterated the reasonings given by the lower court. 25.8.92 has not been challenged by the petitioners. As regards the impugned attachment order dt. 23.10.92 , he has reiterated the reasonings given by the lower court. He has also submitted that for passing an order under section 146[1] Cr.P.C it is not at all necessary to give notice to all the parties concerned because if the Magistrate considers the case to be one of emergency, he is empowered to order for the attachment of the subject in dispute and to appoint Receiver. (5). I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. Both the courts below have concurrently held that in compliance of the partition decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and bearing Khasra no. 35 having total area of 9 Bigha and 14 Biswas was bifurcated and the disputed land measuring 3 Bigha 14 Biswas was mutated in favour of non-petitioner Jamansingh vide mutation no. 190,dt.l5.5.86 on the back of the said mutation, a Nazari naksha was also drawn, wherein the disputed land has been well demarcated. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the disputed land was not demarcated. The courts below have also held that in Jamabandi Samvat year 2037-40 land bearing Khasra no. 35 was recorded in the joint tenancy of the parties but after the mutation no. 190, the disputed land has been shown in the Khatedari of non-petitioner Jaman Singh as per entries of Jamabandi Smt.year 2046-2049. (6). The learned Additional District Magistrate after getting matter enquired by the police was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace existed concernig the disputed land between the parties. He accordingly passed a prelim-inary order dt. 25.8.92 under Sec.145 [1] Cr.P.C requiring the parties to attend his court and put in written statements of their respective claims. Thereafter non-petitioner no.2 filed an application under section 146[1] Cr.P.C The learned Additional District Magistrate issued notice to petitioners and considering the case to be one of emergency passed the impugned order dt.23.10.92 for the attachment of the disputed land and also appointed the Receiver, providing opportunity of hearing and prior notice to parties are not prerequisite for valid attechment for emergency. If the Magistrate considers the case to be one of emergency, it is not at all necessary for him to serve notice on all the parties concerned and thereafter pass the order under sec. If the Magistrate considers the case to be one of emergency, it is not at all necessary for him to serve notice on all the parties concerned and thereafter pass the order under sec. 146[1] Cr.P.C because such deley will defeat the very purpose of avoiding imminent breach of peace. Therefore, the alleged non-service of notice on petitioner Yudhister is not fatal and does not vitiate the impugned order. (7). Admittedly the petitioners have not challenged the preliminary order df.25.8.1992, passed by the learned Additional Magistrate. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge acting as a revisional court was only required to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order dated 23.10.92 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 146 [1] Cr.P.C Hence it was not necessry /obligatory for him to have sent for the file from the Tehsildar even the relevancy of such file was not disclosed by the petitioners. Therefore, on this count also the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. 8. In my considered opinion the discretion used by the learned Additional District Magistrate in passing the order of attachment under Sec. 146 [1] Cr.P.C does not appear to be improper, arbitrary or unjustified. The impugned order, therefore, does not tantamount to abuse of the process of the court nor the same needs to be quashed to secure ends of justice.For the reasons mentioned above, this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Magistrate [City] Jodhpur on 26.08.1994 for further proceedings in the matter.