JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bargarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.360 of 2006 restraining the opp.par¬ties, therein to enter upon the disputed land. 2. The present petitioner was opp.party No.3 and the present opp.party Nos.1 and 2 were petitioners before the Court below. The case of the petitioners therein is that the deity Sri Sri Brahmapura Gopinath Mahaprabhu, Bije at Jhaduapada, Sambalpur is the owner in possession of ‘A’ schedule land of the petition. The said land was recorded in name of the deity in the final Consolidation khata No.35 of mouza-Tupapara under Attabira Taha¬sil, in the district of Bargarh. Affairs of the said deity are being managed by a Trust, duly formed by the Assistant Commis¬sioner of Endowments, Sambalpur of which Sri Chittaranjan Panda is the Managing Trustee. Petitioner No.2 was cultivating the ‘A’ schedule land on “KARA” basis. On 30.10.2006 while petitioner No.2 had been to the disputed land to see the crops, the opp.parties created disturbance. So apprehending breach of peace, he along with petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bargarh, supported by an affidavit, being sworn by Sri Chittaranjan Panda, Managing Trus¬tee to restrain the opp.parties from going upon the disputed land or to create any disturbance in their peaceful possession of the same. On perusing the petition, supported by affidavit and the documents filed by the petitioners the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was satisfied that there was likelihood of breach of peace for the illegal overacts of the opp.parties. So he initiated a pro¬ceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and on 31.10.2006, because of emergency passed an ex parte order restraining the opp.parties to enter upon the disputed land and gave them liberty to file show cause if any on 15.11.2006 for alteration or recession of the said order. He further directed the O.I.C., Attabira Police Sta¬tion to promulgate the said order immediately and submit a report regarding law and order situation in the locality. Being ag¬grieved by this order, opp.party No.3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’) has preferred this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been possessing the disputed land since more than 30 years without disturbance from any quarter. Being ag¬grieved by this order, opp.party No.3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’) has preferred this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been possessing the disputed land since more than 30 years without disturbance from any quarter. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate without issuing notice to the petitioner or any of the opp.parties before him, passed the restraint order illegally. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the present opp.parties submits that it was the specific order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the petitioners were at liberty to file show cause on 15.11.2006 for alteration or recession of the order passed by him. Without filing show cause, the present peti¬tioner straight way approached this Court which is per se illegal. In support of his submission he relies on the decision in Krushna Patra and another v. Kamal Bewa and another, 1988 (II) OLR 582. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 144 Cr.P.C. provides that in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, a restraint order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. can be passed ex parte. Again Sub-section (5) envisages that the Executive Magistrate on his own motion or on the appli¬cation of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under Section 144 Cr.P.C. In the case at hand, while passing the ex parte order the Sub-Divisional Magistrate gave liberty to the present petitioner and other opp.parties before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to file show cause to rescind or alter the order under challenge. Without taking any step before the Court below the petitioner straight way approached this Court in the present Revision. So the Revision being devoid of merit deserves to be set aside. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court vide order dated 28.11.2006 passed status quo order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the said order was in force the present opp.parties and their associates forcibly reaped and removed the paddy crops raised by the petitioner and thereby violated the order of status quo. If it is so, the petitioner may, if he so likes, file a separate Contempt proceeding against the persons violating the status quo order. Under such premises, the Revision stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Revision dismissed.