Judgment : The challenge in this criminal revision case as the order dated 7. 1995 passed by the Executive and Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Cuddalore in M.C. No. 1 of 1995 under Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code proceedings for want of its legality and propriety. .2. The five respondents before the Court below, the B party are the revision petitioners herein, They are challenging the above order which resulted emerged from a petition filed under Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent herein, who is the A party by name Tmt.Thensuvai before the Court below in respect of the landed property to the extent of 1.40 hectares situate in R.S.No.246, are a poromboke of Maligaimedu Madura, Panruti Taluk against the revision petitioners herein alleging that they had the paddy crops and cut carried it away and are attempting to cut the sugarcane crops raised by her, disputing the claim of the respondent for possession and title. This petition was taken on file and accordingly, the petitioners were served with notice and called upon to appear and show cause their case before the Court, by passing the preliminary order by the Court below. On their appearance, the revision petitioner herein, who are the respondents had filed their written objections stating inter alia that the revision petitioner is not in possession of the disputed property at any point of time and that they have been in possession of the same for the last fourteen years by paying the penal tax to the Government and that the father-in-law of the respondent, by name Kumaraswami tried to disturb their possession and they filed civil suits in O.S.Nos.225 to 229 of 1992 before the District Munsif’s Court, Panruti for the relief of possessory title and permanent injunction and got the decree on 212. 1994 and that all the documents produced and relied on by the petitioner were considered and they were rejected. The injunction order passed by the Court below is still in force since 4. 1992 onwards. However, the two civil suits, O.S.Nos.27 and 103 of 1995 are pending on the file of the Sub Court Cuddalore which were for the relief of injunction against the petitioner. The injunction order passed by the Court below is still in force since 4. 1992 onwards. However, the two civil suits, O.S.Nos.27 and 103 of 1995 are pending on the file of the Sub Court Cuddalore which were for the relief of injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to get any interim order there and with a view to have a wrongful gain over the crops raised by the respondents, the proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was initiated by the petitioner. .3. A preliminary objection was raised for and on behalf of the respondents before the court below (revision petitioners) with regard to the maintainability of the petition under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was in the context of the pendency of the civil suits, O.S.Nos.27 and 103 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. One hearing both parties, the Court below appears to have rejected the preliminary objection and held that the petition under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable and consequently, a receiver was also appointed under Sec. 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the very reasoning that the standing sugarcane crops became ripe for harvest and accordingly, the Tahsildar of Panruti Town was directed to harvest the sugarcane crops and deposit the sale proceeds before the Court below. The Tahsildar of Panruti Town has complied with the directions of the Court below. 4. In paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the Court below has observed as hereunder: “After overruling the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents, the case was posted for further hearing. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, the case was posted for final hearing on 7. 1995. On 7. 1995, the counsel for the petitioner alone was present. The counsel for the respondents did not turn up.” 5. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, the case was posted for final hearing on 7. 1995. On 7. 1995, the counsel for the petitioner alone was present. The counsel for the respondents did not turn up.” 5. At this stage, learned Executive and Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Cuddalore went on considering the gamut of the case with reference to the evidence adduced and the materials available mostly the documents reflected by the photostat copies which are not permissible in law and ultimately held that under Sec. 145(6) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent herein was found to be entitled to be in possession of the land in question, until evicted there from in due process of law and that the intervention of her possession and all other activities have been forbidden until such eviction. It is this order, that has been challenged by the revision petitioners in the present revision. 6. The main attack made by the revision petitioners, who were the respondents before the Court below is that after listing the case for final hearing no opportunity was given to them or to their counsel to put forward their case, resulting in their inability to file their objections nor any written submissions by their counsel and thus, the mandatory provisions of Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been a clearly controverted by the Court below. .7. Contra to the above contention, it was argued on behalf of the respondent that the photostat copies of all the relevant documents were made available before the Court below even when the preliminary objections were raised and that only on the basis of the said documents, the Court below has passed the order impugned in this revision. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the Court below is well justified in passing the said order. Reliance was also placed by Mrs. Hema Sampath in support of her contentions on the decision reported in Joseph Michael v. K.Ramachandran, (1992) 1 L.W. 198 in particular the following observation made by this Court, “The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter in still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the recorded to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error in and that is the only way to have the record corrected.” The above view was subscribed by me on the basis of the decision is Somasundaram v. Subramanian, A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 136 rendered by Lord Atkinson. In the decision cited supra, almost similar contentions were raised. The stand now taken by the respondent herein is that the contentions now raised in by the revision petitioners were considered in the abovesaid decision and they were all rejected and that therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to get the relief as sought for by them in the present revision petition. 8. Reliance was also placed on the observations made by the Court below in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, extracted, above, particularly to the fact that on 7. 1995, the counsel for the petitioner alone was present and the counsel for the respondent did not turn up. If I am inclined to accept the above position as correct and true in the light of the case laws referred to above and whereupon no importance or reliance can be placed upon the arguments advanced by Mr. K.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners, then, it is very difficult for me to digest the above position in view of the following observation made by the Court below in Paragraph 1 l(ii) of the impugned order, which is extracted as hereunder: “The learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of the his argument contended that the lands were under the possession of the respondents. But he has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim.” .9. This refers to the crucial date, i.e. four days after 7. 1995 the previous hearing date. I have also perused the entire case records very carefully. I do not find any entries after 7. 1995, by the Court below in the case records, nor the parties were asked to appear for any future hearing date. This refers to the crucial date, i.e. four days after 7. 1995 the previous hearing date. I have also perused the entire case records very carefully. I do not find any entries after 7. 1995, by the Court below in the case records, nor the parties were asked to appear for any future hearing date. If the position is so, then, it is not known as to on what dates the parties were asked to appear before the Court below for future hearing nor their counsel were intimated to appear on 7. 1995 to file any documents or to plead or to adduce any legal evidence. The dates of hearing, the dates showing the adjournments, the dates when orders were reserved by the Court and the dates showing the particulars about the adjournments granted for arguing the case are all found missing in the case records. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the mandatory duties cast upon the learned Executive and Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Cuddalore as contemplated under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with by learned Executive and Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Cuddalore. Further, without giving an opportunity to the parties in a dispute for possession of the landed property and passing an order without hearing the parties is directly hit by audi alteram partem and it is totally against the principle of natural justice. On this ground alone, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. 10. Barring this, the documents, filed by either of the parties were not found in original, but most of them are photostat copies. I do not know under what provisions of law they have all been admitted in evidence without even numbering and marking the said documents. This sort of procedure is rather peculiar in the sense that the Presiding Officer is expected to be vigilant in following the procedures contemplated in law while passing orders. It is curious to note that the certified copies of decree can be made available only after summoning the originals. The reliance of the photostat copies of the documents by the Court below is a vulnerable irregularity. Hence, I find every force in the grievance expressed by the Bar for the petitioner. It is curious to note that the certified copies of decree can be made available only after summoning the originals. The reliance of the photostat copies of the documents by the Court below is a vulnerable irregularity. Hence, I find every force in the grievance expressed by the Bar for the petitioner. Moreover, it is also not known which of the two parties have filed the photostat copies of the documents in support of their rival contentions. It is also apparent that no reasonable opportunity was given to the revision petitioners respondents so as to enable the to produce the documentary evidence on their behalf of and they have no chance to plead their case before the Court below for total adjudication of the matter. It was also brought to my notice about the suit filed by the respondent by same Tmt. Thensuvai in O.S.Nos.27 and 103 of 1995, which are pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore without any interim order passed. In view of the pendency of Sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code proceedings between the same parties in civil court, they can expedite the hearing of the suit and have been disposed of by approaching the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and the Bar appearing for either parties will render every assistance in that regard and take initiative. 11. Thus, on a careful consideration of the entire materials particularly the order impugned in this revision, I am fully constrained to hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. But, ends of justice require me to send back to the entire case papers to the file of the Executive and Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Cuddalore, in M.C.No.1 of 1995 for fresh disposal in accordance with the procedures laid down under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the light of the defects pointed out by me. The learned Executive and Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Cuddalore shall dispose of the matter afresh within a maximum period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by providing reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to both parties and also enabling them to produce sufficient materials in support of their respective contentions. 12. 12. While setting aside the impugned order, I direct both parties is this revision to maintain status quo and the Bar appearing for both parties are also advised not to precipitate anything till the final disposal of the pursuant proceedings between the parties. 13. In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings and findings and in the light of the directions given above, this criminal revision case succeeds and it is allowed. Accordingly, the order made in M.C.No.1 of 1995 by the Executive and Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Cuddalore is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal in the manner indicated above.