Order.- This is a revision petition filed against the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Belgaum. The petitioner before this Court was Party No. 1 and the respondent was Party No. 2. On the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Marihal, that there was likelihood of the breach of peace between Party No. 1 and Party No. 2 with regard to the possession of certain lands, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belgaum Sub-Division, Belgaum, passed a preliminary order on 19(h December, 1964, and directed the parties concerned to put in their written statements of their respective claims and to adduce evidence with regard to the possession of the lands in dispute. On 22nd March, 1965, the learned Magistrate passed the final order under sub-section (6) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code holding that Party No. 2 (respondent herein) was in possession of the disputed land. The petitioner filed a revision questioning the correctness of the said order before the learned District Magistrate, Belgaum. The learned District Magistrate dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Belgaum. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court questioning the correctness of the said order. Sri Raikar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that both the Courts below have not at all considered the evidence let in the case. Sub-section (4) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory. It States that the Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any such parties to right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements, documents and affidavits if any, so put in and hear the parties and conclude the inquiry. The complaint of Sri Raikar is that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence let in by the petitioner. I am of opinion that there is considerable force in the contention of Sri Raikar. The learned Magistrate has not considered or applied his mind to the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The order of the learned Magistrate reads as follows: "The Advocate for Party No. 2 produced before me a copy of judgment of I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum in R.O.S. No. 174 of 1964, dated 10th September, 1964. The learned Magistrate has not considered or applied his mind to the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The order of the learned Magistrate reads as follows: "The Advocate for Party No. 2 produced before me a copy of judgment of I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum in R.O.S. No. 174 of 1964, dated 10th September, 1964. I find that the civil Court came to the conclusion that prima facie the case of Party No. 2 that she was allotted the lands in dispute as her share by private arrangement through purchase appeared to be true and that Party No. 1 has not made out any prima facie case that he has been in possession or that he has an exclusive right to the lands in dispute. In view of this ruling of the civil Court I hold that Party No. 2 was in possession of the lands in dispute on the date of the preliminary order, viz., 19th December, 1964, and they should be handed over to Party No. 2 from the possession of the receiver appointed under the said preliminary order." It is clear from this order that the learned Magistrate has not considered the petitioner’s case. He has simply based his decision on the copy of the judgment of the I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in R.O.S. No. 174 of 1964 dated 10th September, 1964. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, that is, Party No. 2, that what the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate refers to as the judgment in R.O.S. No. 174 of 1964 is not a judgment, but only an order passed on application for ad interim injunction praying that the defendant, i.e., Party No. 2 be restrained from obstructing Party No. 1’s possession of the plaint properties. This interim injunction was refused by the Court mainly on the ground that Party No. 1 has not adduced evidence. The learned Munsiff held, prima facie it appeared to him that the case of Party No. 2 that she was allotted 1/4th share seemed to be correct and he declined to issue the ad interim injunction prayed for by Party No. 1. There is no judgment or order of any civil Court passed on merits as to whether Party No. 1 or Party No. 2 was in possession of the disputed lands. There is no judgment or order of any civil Court passed on merits as to whether Party No. 1 or Party No. 2 was in possession of the disputed lands. Sri Raikar is also right in contending that the learned Magistrate has violated the mandatory provisions of sub-section (4) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (4) of the said section states that the Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of such parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements, documents and affidavits, if any, so put in hear toe parties and conclude the inquiry. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner had filed written statement and also had adduced evidence in the form of affidavits. The learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The order of the learned Magistrate is therefore clearly illegal and cannot be supported. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. I set aside the final order passed by the learned Magistrate or 22nd April, 1965, under section 145(6), Criminal Procedure Code declaring the second party to be in possession of the disputed lands. The learned Magistrate will permit the parties to adduce any fresh evidence if they so desire and dispose of the case according to law. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.