JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.10.2007 whereby the revisional Court has remanded the matter back to the Addl. District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur for re-enquiry on factum of possession. 2. Short facts of the case are that proceedings under Sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C. have been started on 8.5.2003. The preliminary orders were passed and when the matter was under consideration, an application under Section 145(5) has been filed by the present petitioners, on which the trial Court quashed the proceedings. In revision, the revisional Court has said that the dispute has not been ended and hence the trial Court was not justified to drop the proceeding under Section 145(5) and ordered to enquire and pass an appropriate order under Section 145(6). 3. Heard Learned counsel for the parties. 4. The main contention of the present petitioners is that the learned Magistrate has attached the property in dispute by order dated 8.5.2003, whereas the revisional Court has set aside the order and directed that the possession of the said land be given to the person from whom it was taken and in pursuance of said order, possession of the land has been given to the present petitioners and the learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, accepted the application filed by the petitioner under Section 145(5) and dropped the proceedings. It is clear that there is no apprehension of any breach of peace. A civil suit is also pending between the parties. The revisional Court has not appreciated this aspect of the matter that the petitioners was in possession over the land in dispute since long and hence when no dispute has existed, dropping of the proceedings under Section 145(5) was justified and order of revisional Court should be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once a preliminary order under Section 145(1) has been drawn and the Magistrate has recorded a reasoned order, as to the existence of breach of peace in his preliminary order, the dispute has never been ended, then dropping of the proceedings under Section 145(5) is unwarranted. He has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Rajpati v. Bachan and another, 1980 Cri.L.J. 1276 and Gajendra Singh & Anr. He has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Rajpati v. Bachan and another, 1980 Cri.L.J. 1276 and Gajendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1995 Cri.L.J. 2133 wherein it has been held that where apprehension of breach of peace, the Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction and passed a preliminary order, this satisfaction will remain valid till final decision of the proceeding. Here in the present case, no evidence has been produced that the apprehension of breach of peace between the parties ceased to be existed. On a simple application, the learned Magistrate had dropped the proceedings without considering the rival contentions of the parties and evidence as well s material available on record. It is not in dispute that the proceedings were pending for the evidence of the parties. Meanwhile, application under Section 145(5) has been presented and without taking any evidence, impugned order has been passed, which has been rightly set aside by the revisional Court, In the present case, the learned Magistrate has committed error in treating the application as evidence and in a casual manner he has recorded finding that apprehension of breach of peace ceased to be existed and the revisional Court has rightly observed that the trial Court should decide the matter after proper enquiry. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******