JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure the 2nd party members in Criminal Misc. Case No. 893 of 1993 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Cuttack, have prayed to quash the order dated 23.9.1994 (Annexure-I) of the learned Magistrate and judgment dated 19.4.1996 in Criminal Revision No. 140 of 1994 (Annexure-2) of the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 2. It appears from the impugned order that the dispute between the 1st party and 2nd party members is with respect to a club house registered under the Societies of Registration Act. This dispute giving rise to apprehension of breach of peace in connection with 'Kartikeswar Puja' resulted in initiation of a proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure and the matter being contested by both the parties relating to possession of the club house premises, learned Magistrate converted the sale to a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and after consideration of the evidence on record, declared the possession in favour of the 1st party members who are the opposite party members in this application. The 2nd party members challenged the said order in the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuttack and learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, after hearing the parties on 19.4.1996, delivered the impugned judgment dismissing the revision application. Thus, they have approached this Court challenging legality and correctness of the aforesaid Annexures-l and 2. 3. The main thrust of the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that learned Executive Magistrate did not declare the possession in conformity with the language in Sub-sections (4) and (6) of Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in as much as he did not state in so many words whether the 1st party members were in possession on the date of the preliminary order or two months prior to that. He further argued that in view of the ratio in the cases of 1973 (39) C.L.T. 698 and 1972 (1) C.W.R. 461, the aforesaid order of learned Executive Magistrate is vulnerable and that aspect was not properly appreciated by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. He, thus, prays to set aside both the orders. 4. At the time of hearing, opposite parties did not appear to participate in hearing. 5. He, thus, prays to set aside both the orders. 4. At the time of hearing, opposite parties did not appear to participate in hearing. 5. The inherent power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked when the Court finds that such orders may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At the same time, the provision in Section 397(3), Code of Criminal Procedure provides a bar for entertaining a second revision by the same party. Therefore, a second revision in the disguise of an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is not readily to be entertained unless this Court finds that any of the aforesaid three circumstances exists to invoke the inherent power. 6. On perusal of the impugned orders this Court finds that learned Executive Magistrate recorded the finding that all throughout the 1st party members were in possession of the club being members of the said club. Therefore, the declaration of the said possession is undoubtedly under Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure Learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, after taking note of the aforesaid two citations and considering the allegations of the above stated legal lacuna, found the said contention not correct in view of the categorical finding recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate. On perusal of the citations referred to above, this Court does not differ from the opinion expressed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no justifiable reason to invoke the inherent power to interfere with Annexures-1and 2. 7. Before parting with the revision it may be noted that in Annexure-2 learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge hasspedifically mentioned that Title Suit filed by the 2nd party members was dismissed in the meantime. Notwithstanding that, learned Executive Magistrate has rightly observed that in view of the bye-law of the said club, any villager between the age of 16 to 45 years is eligible to be a member of the said club. Sessions Judge hasspedifically mentioned that Title Suit filed by the 2nd party members was dismissed in the meantime. Notwithstanding that, learned Executive Magistrate has rightly observed that in view of the bye-law of the said club, any villager between the age of 16 to 45 years is eligible to be a member of the said club. Thus, to have any status as a member of the club, if so desired, any of the 2nd party members may apply for membership which shall be appropriately considered by the office bearers of the said club and at that time declaration of possession ill favour of the 1st party members shall not stand as a bar as the solitary ground to reject their applications. With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal Misc. Case stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed