Judgment 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners B party aggrieved against the order made in M.C.No.44 of 1997, dated 4.11.1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode and to quash the same. 2. The short facts are as follows: An order of injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs-B party by the Subordinate Judge, Sankari in I.A.No.1004 of 1997, dated 27.10.1997 in O.S.No.1004 of 1997 in respect of the suit land which is admittedly a patta land and the said order of interim injunction is still in force. In the memorandum meanwhile, on 14.11.1997, the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, in M.C.No.44 of 1997/C issued showcause notice clubbing the A and B parties directing them to show cause as to why they should not be asked to execute bonds each for Rs.1,000 for a period of one year under Sec.107 of Criminal Procedure Code to keep peace. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, the order of the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue divisional Officer, Tiruchengode clubbing both A and B parties and calling upon them to show cause as to why bond should not be executed is an illegal order and the same is liable to be quashed. My attention is invited to the ruling reported in Athianna Gounder v. Nachiappan Athianna Gounder v. Nachiappan , 1982 L.W. (Crl.) 61 wherein a learned Judge of this Court has held that the impugned order of the Magistrate passed under Sec.111 of Criminal Procedure Code clubbing both A and B parties to execute bonds each for Rs.1,000 to keep peace for one year and to bind themselves not to commit any breach of peace or to do any action that may cause breach of peace during the said period of one year is illegal and set aside the same. To the same effect are the decisions reported in (1) Natesa Thevar v. Executive Magistrate Natesa Thevar v. Executive Magistrate , (1987( L.W. (Crl.) 49; (2) Sekar v. R.Padmalosai Sekar v. R.Padmalosai , 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 262 and (3) Balasundaram, T.R.A. v. T.R.Sellamuthu Balasundaram, T.R.A. v. T.R.Sellamuthu , 1987 L.W (Crl.) 332. 4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the period of one year has already expired and therefore, no order need be passed by this Court. 4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the period of one year has already expired and therefore, no order need be passed by this Court. I am unable to agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The question is whether the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode is legal or not. I am clearly of the opinion that the correct position of law has been stated in the above decisions and I agree with the same. Hence, I find the impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed and the order of the Sub Divisional Executive-Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode in M.C.No.44 of 1997/C, dated 4.11.1997 is quashed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. Nos.6511 of 1997 and 5817 of 1998 are also dismissed.