Mohd. Shamim ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against anorder dated 7th August, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he set aside the order dated 23rd May, 1994 passed by the learned S. D. M. and remanded the case to the learned S. D. M. with a direction to implead the legal representatives of the deceased Sh. Moti Ram and then to proceed with the enquiry further. ( 2 ) THE brief facts which gave rise to the presentation of the present petition are as under; that the learned Magistrate while dealing with the petition under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code ordered the attachment of the property bearing No. X-1274,gali No. 2, Satsang Marg, Rajgarh Colony, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. During the pendency of the proceedings Party No. 1 Sh. Moti Ram before die S. D. M. died on 12th March, 1993. One of his legal heirs Sh. Darshan Kumar informed the S. D. M. with regard to his death vide his application dated 24th May, 1993. Thereafter the learned S. D. M. passed an order that the disputed property be de-sealed and be handed over to Sh. Anil Kumar, Smt. Raj Rani and Bachan Singh. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED and dissatisfied with the said order Sh. Darshan Kumar approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that aduty was cast on the shoulders of the learned S. D. M. to implead the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Moti Ram and thereafter he should have proceeded with the enquiry once he came to know with regard to the death of Moti Ram. Learned S. D. M. instead of adopting the procedure as provided under Section 145 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code proceeded with the proceedings and de-sealed the property. Thus according to the Additional Sessions Judge the said order was illegal and invalid and he thus set aside the said order and remanded the case to the learned S. D. M. for impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased Sh. Moti Ram and then to proceed with the enquiry further. ( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the petitioner has approached this Court. It has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that the information with regard to the death of the deceased Sh. Moti Ram and then to proceed with the enquiry further. ( 4 ) DISSATISFIED with the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the petitioner has approached this Court. It has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that the information with regard to the death of the deceased Sh. Moti Ram was given on 24th May, 1993 through an application of the said date. Learned S. D. M. waited very patiently for more than a year or so before he proceeded ex parte and passed the impugned order dated 24th November, 1994 whereby he de-sealed the property and restored the possession to the petitioners herein. Thus learned Counsel contends that there is nothing wrong in the order. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has urged to the contrary while supporting the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent the moment a Magistrate comes to know with regard to the death of a particular party he is under an obligation to implead the legal heirs of the said party and then to proceed with the enquiry further. Learned Counsel in order to substantiate his contention has led me through Section 145 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is in the following words : "when any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceedings and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto. " ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and given my anxious thoughts thereto. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY Sh. Moti Ram breathed his last on 12th March, 1993 and the information with regard to the death of Sh. Moti Ram was given by his son Sh. Darshan Kumar on 24th May, 1993, as is manifest from a copy of the application placed on the file of this Court. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY Sh. Moti Ram breathed his last on 12th March, 1993 and the information with regard to the death of Sh. Moti Ram was given by his son Sh. Darshan Kumar on 24th May, 1993, as is manifest from a copy of the application placed on the file of this Court. Thus in the above circumstances aduty was cast on the shoulders of- the learned S. D. M. to have impleaded the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Moti Ram and thereafter to have proceeded with the enquiry. Learned S. D. M. instead of acting in accordance with the provisions of Section 145 (7) of the Cr. P. C. , he moved further with the enquiry and passed the impugned order dated 24th November, 1994 whereby he de-sealed the property and handed over the possession over the same to the petitioners herein. Admittedly no order regarding the substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Moti Ram was passed despite the fact that S. D. M. came to know that Moti Ram was no more in this world. ( 8 ) THUS I am in perfect agreement with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the procedure adopted by the learned S. D. M. was unknown to law and was thus illegal and invalid. Consequently I feel the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in remanding the case to the learned S. D. M. for impleadment of the legal heirs of Sh. Moti Ram and then to proceed further with the enquiry. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the above facts and circumstances no case for interference with the impugned order dated 7th August, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is made out.