JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - This application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission on active participation of both the parties. 2. Second Party in M.C. No. 49 of 1997 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Surada is the Petitioner in this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure That proceeding was initiated u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the opposite parties in this proceeding were the 1st party. 3. As it reveals from the certifies copies of the order dated 27.10.97 the Executive Magistrate being satisfied about existence of apprehension of breach of peace from the averment made in the application supported by affidavit of the 1st party initiated the proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure and passed ex-parte prohibitory order against the 2nd party. On 3.11.97, after hearing the application filed by the 2nd party, he also restrained the 1 st party member from entering into the case land. After hearing both the parties, on 10.12.97, learned Executive Magistrate made the prohibitory order absolute against the I st party and the prohibitory order against the 2nd party was vacated. In that order, he allowed the claim of possession by the 2nd party relying on the registered sale deeds and the rent receipts produced by the 2nd party. 4. First party challenged the aforesaid order in Criminal Revision No. 8/98 (Criminal Revision No. 10/98-SDC). The 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur allowed that revision as per the impugned judgment dated 24.11.98. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, discussed the merit of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate and found it to be deficient in appreciating the evidences inasmuch as the effect of order passed by the DEA Collector was not properly considered by the Executive Magistrate and besides that before initiation of the proceeding the Executive Magistrate did not call for a report from the local police regarding existence of imminent breach of peace. On the aforesaid two grounds, he set aside the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate. 6. On the aforesaid two grounds, he set aside the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate. 6. While addressing this Court, learned Counsel for both the parties extremely fair as far as the position of law is concerned that in a proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure the question affright, title, interest or even possession is not to be adjudicated and that a dispute regarding possession With a view to avoid apprehension of breach of peace should be decided in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and not u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. however, argues that as a prohibitory order u/s 144 (I) Code of Criminal Procedure becomes nonoperative after the expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of prohibitory order therefore, a revision application is not maintainable to examine correctness of an efflux order. This contention of the Petitioner is not acceptable in view of the fact that revisional Court has jurisdiction to examine legality and correctness of the prohibitory order even after expiry of 60 days. In such a case, however, the revisional Court cannot pass any further order relating to operation of the prohibitory order. That being the correct position of law, the first contention raised by the Petitioner is not accepted. 8. On perusal of the order of the Magistrate as well as the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, this Court finds that the appreciation of facts and circumstances vis-a-vis the position of law as stated above was not properly comprehended by the learned Magistrate and he committed the mistake in adjudicating the disputed claim of possession in a proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure If at all the Magistrate was satisfied regarding existence of breach of peace concerning possession of land, he should have taken action or should have proceeded u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and should not have resorted to a proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure It also appears from the final order passed by the Magistrate that he did not properly evaluate the evidence available in the record. Learned Additional Sessions Judge thus rightly commented regarding that illegality in the order of the Magistrate. Learned Additional Sessions Judge thus rightly commented regarding that illegality in the order of the Magistrate. Fact remains that order passed by the Magistrate or the observation made by the Sessions Judge remains confined to the said proceeding and it shall not have the force of a decree or order to create res judicata against any party regarding claim of right, title, interest or possession. As it appears the aforesaid observation regarding the implications of the impugned judgment is sufficient enough to take care of future litigations, if any. 9. The above made discussions and findings lead to the conclusion that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed