Judgment N.Roy, J. 1. I have heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 5.9.1997 passed by the Executive Magistrate in case No. 353 (M) 1996 ordering removal of obstruction in exercise of his power under Section 147, Cr PC. It appears that firstly a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC, was initiated and then the same was converted into a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC and the parties pursuant to the notice filed their written statements. Thereafter upon a petition filed by Opposite Party No. 1, the proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC, and the learned Magistrate at the same time directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to remove the obstruction is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as that the Opposite Party No. 2 had not established his claim by evidence and the learned Magistrate merely on the basis of the written-statements filed by the parties in 145 proceedings and after considering the submissions passed the order impugned. 4. I have perused the order impugned. From the order impugned it appears that the learned Magistrate in clear words has directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction till further trial. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the interim order and for which he was empowered to do so in exercise of the power under Section 147, Cr PC. 5. It is settled that unless the claim of the applicant is determined on evidence, no interim order even can be passed in a proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Krishna Das Agarwal V/s. Deen Dayal Agrawal, 1974 BLJR 316. Sub-section (2) of Section 147, Cr PC is very clear on this point which envisages that the Magistrate after perusing the statements and after hearing the parties and receiving all such evidence produced by the parties, shall pass necessary orders. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, must be said to be unknown to law. The order impugned to the extent by which the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction is thus liable to be set aside. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, must be said to be unknown to law. The order impugned to the extent by which the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction is thus liable to be set aside. 6. I, therefore, allow this application and set aside that part of the order by which the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to remove the obstruction. However, the learned Magistrate now shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.